Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 475 posts

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#341

Post by JDiculous »

I have little sympathy for someone making $1.2m/year and complaining that they're depressed because of their job. If you hate your job so much on that income, just work for a year or two and leave! At that income there's no reason why he shouldn't have enough saved up to retire in a lower cost of living area (assuming this isn't his first job out of uni and he's not spending like a maniac). If not (or at least if he's not on track), then he's just being financially irresponsible and needs to cut down his expenses. You don't need that $4m penthouse or Lamborghini.

On another note, how does one land these $1.2m/yr jobs? That's over $3k/day, I couldn't even spend that kind of money if I tried.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#342

Post by vasilipupkin »

glitchc wrote: post #228
vasilipupkin wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this type of Census data understates household incomes. I am not exactly sure why, but Atherton comes in at about 400k a year per household. That is a lot, but doesn't seem like a lot for Atherton.

No, this seems right. The typical distribution of income across the pop., even in a distorted environment like the valley, looks far more like a Poisson distribution with a long tail than a typical Gaussian

137 is a median. Half the people in Palo Alto make less than 137 in household income? Maybe, if you count East Palo Alto. But Atherton at 443 ( https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-hundred-richest-plac... ) ? seems too low

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#343

Post by ameister14 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #230
School-Cotton wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. $20,000/mo rent in NYC will get you a gigantic apartment (thousands of square feet), as you can verify on any housing listings website.

It can get you that, but not if you want to be in SoHo on the 30th floor of a luxury building or whatever.

You are wrong. You'll pay $60-70 a square foot, but 20k will get you a lot.

https://streeteasy.com/building/chelsea-modern/rental/265743...

https://streeteasy.com/building/336-west-23-street-manhattan...

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#344

Post by alexhutcheson »

seem_2211 wrote: post #255

I think we're focusing on the wrong thing here (broadly), which is mocking the guy making $1.2m a year. Yes, that's a lot of money, and almost all of us (myself included) struggle to see how to spend that money. But at the same time, I feel some empathy for that guy - he's increased his expenses proportionally and he feels trapped doing something he doesn't enjoy with no end in sight. I know I've moved my expenses up…

"Lifestyle inflation" doesn't necessarily just mean nice vacations and fancy cars - education expenses for children are often a huge part of it.

In the major coastal metros, living in a great school district or paying for an equivalent-quality private school is a tremendous expense. Parents also feel pressure to save enough to send their children to the best college or university that they can get into, which can be a $300,000+ expense.

For many parents, these expenses are non-negotiable - "downsizing" in this area is off the table.

I think there's a fair case that these parents are locked in a society-wide arms race: everyone would be better off if the kids were under less pressure to get the "best" education credentials possible, but almost everyone thinks they would be worse off if they unilaterally "disarmed".

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#345

Post by jgamman »

BucketSort wrote: post #231
mactrey wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true but also people come to care about what they do. They may not be "passionate" about work but it is what they spend the most time doing, it is their main source of daily challenge and problem solving, it represents social interaction, and it is their main source of pride and accomplishment and personal striving. To just up and leave work leaves a huge void in their lives. People can learn to fill that voi…

I said that because the parent comment said "I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life." They don't have those passions in life per say and fill that void with work and other things. You are actually echoing what I'm saying in your own way. Also, I like how people bring up gardening sometimes when passion is d…

change 'gardening' to 'nurturing' and you might get a sense of the fulfillment (contentedness?) of being able to enjoy your creation that took planning, effort and time. exponential if you get to enjoy your children enjoying it too. it may be small but leaving _your_ patch of dirt a better place than you found it can be a personally enriching pasttime. then again, i don't understand people that create gardens so they can be photographed for lifestyle magazines so there's that...

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#346

Post by selectodude »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #335
zaccus wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a 4% return, 2.5MM absolutely does yield 100k per year, forever. Yes inflation will eat away at the value of that 100k over time, but that's less of a problem if you own your home and have something left over each year to reinvest.

> have something left over each year to reinvest. Right. So my question is how much can you withdraw to indefinitely draw the same inflation adjusted value?

The annualized return on the S&P 500 since its inception is 10 percent. Adjusted for inflation it's 6.5-7 percent. In the last 20 years, it's 5.9 percent. Adjusted for inflation it's 4.37 percent. So withdrawing 4 percent per year would be reasonable and keep up with inflation. It gets slightly more complex when you think about taking money out during down years is much larger impact than during good years, but that's an exercise for the reader.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#347

Post by genericone »

BucketSort wrote: post #231
mactrey wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true but also people come to care about what they do. They may not be "passionate" about work but it is what they spend the most time doing, it is their main source of daily challenge and problem solving, it represents social interaction, and it is their main source of pride and accomplishment and personal striving. To just up and leave work leaves a huge void in their lives. People can learn to fill that voi…

I said that because the parent comment said "I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life." They don't have those passions in life per say and fill that void with work and other things. You are actually echoing what I'm saying in your own way. Also, I like how people bring up gardening sometimes when passion is d…

When I read 'gardening', internally I interpreted that as any agricultural/floricultural pursuit. That spans everything from an indoor potted cactus, to no-till gardening, to hydroponics, to soil-management, etc etc. Growing plants is as much a science as it is a creative pursuit.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#348

Post by ryandrake »

seem_2211 wrote: post #255

I think we're focusing on the wrong thing here (broadly), which is mocking the guy making $1.2m a year. Yes, that's a lot of money, and almost all of us (myself included) struggle to see how to spend that money. But at the same time, I feel some empathy for that guy - he's increased his expenses proportionally and he feels trapped doing something he doesn't enjoy with no end in sight. I know I've moved my expenses up…

I'd be 100% fine with working like a dog for $1.2M a year in a job I hated, spending as little as possible, if it meant after NHave not found that job offer yet, but if you know of it, E-mail in profile :-) I won't hold my breath.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#349

Post by CompelTechnic »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #335
zaccus wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a 4% return, 2.5MM absolutely does yield 100k per year, forever. Yes inflation will eat away at the value of that 100k over time, but that's less of a problem if you own your home and have something left over each year to reinvest.

> have something left over each year to reinvest. Right. So my question is how much can you withdraw to indefinitely draw the same inflation adjusted value?

check firecalc.com for historical likelihood of portfolio success, given a starting nest egg and an annual withdrawal rate. The 4% withdrawal rate mentioned above is very likely to succeed for an indefinite period, and 3% is essentially impossible. This is all assuming 85% US equities and 15% bonds, and that the future looks vaguely like the past 150 years.

Despite all the skepticism above, the 4% claims are true. Not 100% chance of indefinite success, but close enough to be actionable. You can also google the "trinity study" for more info.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#350

Post by CamTin »

pjc50 wrote: post #86
cat199 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Many people could retire after one year at 500k or 1M because their cost of living is such that they would be able to save almost all of it, and this would spread across their retirement..

The average UK private pension pot is £100k ... this implies that either people with £1m should be retiring earlier, or we'll have a generation who can't afford to retire.

The situation is similar, if not worse, in the US, and the latter is true: absent government pension programs like Social Security, almost nobody can afford to retire. Social Security is the retirement plan for regular people. Basically only union workers with defined-benefit pensions and high-salary professionals who are able to fund their 401(k) meaningfully have any kind of plan for retirement besides living on Social Security. The luckiest can also draw on help from family, life insurance, and getting part-time work as e.g. a Walmart greeter.

Thinking about retirement savings at all is kind of a luxury.

Post reply on HN