I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself • Hacker News Board

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#41

Post by unreal37 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

martamorena wrote: post #24

The article misses out on the math though. She saves 90% percent of her income? So does she earn 80k after taxes? She would need to earn about 130k+ after taxes to save 90% of her income, given that she is the one who pays all the expenses, which at 1000$ per 3 people is hard to imagine. Even in a small German town, where things are dirt-cheap compared to Seattle, 1000$ for 3 persons is almost impossible. I don't lik…

It's not that hard.

She rents the house she lives in for more than the cost of her mortgage. She makes income from that there. They don't own a car. Her husband gets a free bus pass from work. No housing or transportation expenses. So what's left? Food?

Her husband works in tech (first Amazon, and now Google!) and saves 100% of his income. And they live off hers. They have like $1.7 million saved from his Amazon stock which should be a nice investment income too.

Their expenses are around $1000 per month.

Not that hard to imagine the math.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#42

Post by mpeg » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

xenihn wrote: post #12

I'm honestly so jealous of the husband's situation. 7-figure networth before hitting 30, a 4-bedroom home in a major tech hub, and a compulsively frugal wife who is obsessed with financial planning and amplifying your shared incomes/networths. The dream. This article just feels like a vector to drive traffic towards her sites, though.

It feels like a recipe for marital disaster that she's living this extremely frugal lifestyle despite him making good money and he "goes along with it" (her words)

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#43

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #3

When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…

> Imagine where mankind could be if we had everyone being able to have the basics, and ample free time to think, to explore, to experiment, to create.

Realistically? Probably better than 99% of people would play video games and watch TV their whole lives. Not everybody is oriented to be an artist/author, an inventor, a scientist, or some other creative type.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#44

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #20

cercatrova wrote: post #3

When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…

What does it mean for a nation as a whole to "take care of" its children? Or specifically, what is it beyond public schools that we'd want to satisfy that? Is it simply better public schools where they're doing poorly, or something else I am missing?

Rights of the Child,https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-te... is a reasonable baseline.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#45

Post by travisjungroth » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

martamorena wrote: post #24

The article misses out on the math though. She saves 90% percent of her income? So does she earn 80k after taxes? She would need to earn about 130k+ after taxes to save 90% of her income, given that she is the one who pays all the expenses, which at 1000$ per 3 people is hard to imagine. Even in a small German town, where things are dirt-cheap compared to Seattle, 1000$ for 3 persons is almost impossible. I don't lik…

On that $1,000, it seems she is excluding their mortgage because they rent out rooms. This seems like disingenuous accounting. If you lived and ate at your own bed and breakfast (which they essentially do) you could claim a 100% savings rate if you spent money on nothing but food and housing.

I wouldn’t normally think calling this out is so important, but she’s using struggle porn as advertising for her businesses linked at the bottom of the article. She’s lying for profit.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#46

Post by crankylinuxuser » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #21

cercatrova wrote: post #3

When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…

> ... so that they can choose their own avenues of success ... At present 'success' in practice is basically synonymous with 'resource consumption'. At a guess that is going to be a very sticky connection that might even be wired in at the biological level; it seems to be quite consistent across the different cultures I know of. It is not possible to liberate people to pursue success by improving the social safety ne…

> I think there is a good argument for making sure everyone has few-questions-asked access to ~9,000 kJ/day of food and some sort of safe housing to live in. We live in wealthy times. But a social safety net isn't going to set people up for success in any way that is meaningful to most people.

I find that a very sad view. Many people I know can't start a business or do risky things because of food, shelter, medical insurance/premiums. I know I'd jump if I knew that if/when I failed, I wouldn't be destitute.

Right now, doing such is primarily relegated to inheritance, familial money, or miraculously winning it 'big' (Horatio Alger stories). They have the cushion. They can fall back to safety within family money. They have connections.

We don't have any of those things going for us. But then again, people also think we're just too lazy or unmeaningful. No, we just know what's being risked, and we can't make that choice with the threat of destitution.

The bottom goes pretty deep in the US.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#47

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #43

cercatrova wrote: post #3

When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…

> Imagine where mankind could be if we had everyone being able to have the basics, and ample free time to think, to explore, to experiment, to create. Realistically? Probably better than 99% of people would play video games and watch TV their whole lives. Not everybody is oriented to be an artist/author, an inventor, a scientist, or some other creative type.

> Not everybody is oriented to be an artist/author, an inventor, a scientist, or some other creative type.

More people probably are naturally oriented in a way compatible with that (perhaps not to be commercially successful at it, but that's expressly not an issue) before they are aggressively socialized out of it by people who want to prepare them for the economic necessities of surviving in the world we actually live in, where indulging such an orientation without the particular combination of skill and luck needed for commercial success is often a recipe for misery.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#48

Post by nugget » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #33

xenihn wrote: post #12

I'm honestly so jealous of the husband's situation. 7-figure networth before hitting 30, a 4-bedroom home in a major tech hub, and a compulsively frugal wife who is obsessed with financial planning and amplifying your shared incomes/networths. The dream. This article just feels like a vector to drive traffic towards her sites, though.

It might be a dream if the feeling of security, of having assets, money in the bank, is the thing that's missing in your life. That'll be the case to the degree that you were insecure and poor as a child, I'd expect. I grew up poor, but not as poor as the lady in the article. And it was in Ireland, so there was a social security net, my college degree was paid for, etc. So I feel comfy enough once I have a year's tak…

Proponents of financial independence would say that high savings rates eventually buy you control over your own time which is one of the most rewarding things in the world.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#49

Post by thatfrenchguy » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

mpeg wrote: post #42

xenihn wrote: post #12

I'm honestly so jealous of the husband's situation. 7-figure networth before hitting 30, a 4-bedroom home in a major tech hub, and a compulsively frugal wife who is obsessed with financial planning and amplifying your shared incomes/networths. The dream. This article just feels like a vector to drive traffic towards her sites, though.

It feels like a recipe for marital disaster that she's living this extremely frugal lifestyle despite him making good money and he "goes along with it" (her words)

Only if you assume spending more money will make you happier though

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#50

Post by crankylinuxuser » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #25

cercatrova wrote: post #3

When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…

Many systems would be "better and more efficient for a nation as a whole" if everyone was 100% selfless and treated the welfare of others as exactly as important as their own welfare. Sadly, the way the universe works, any such system is open to free riders who take more than their share. Tragedy of the commons. The only solutions we've found so far are: 1. Assign people control of what they create, so they can benef…

1. You don't need to get "more health". You get treated and you feel better again.

2. All people should have the right of food. I don't care how much you make, who you are, or whatever. You live, and that's your right. We should be working on automated farms so we can grow this locally.

3. Same, for water.

4. If you don't have a place to sleep, we provide you one. May not be big, but a place to sleep and call home is essential in solving homelessness. And it provides a way out of the poverty trap.

5. Communication should be inexpensive. I would prefer free for lower bandwidth. Its an essential for jobs and so much more. An internet connection is one of the biggest ways into self sufficiency.