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

You don't really want a million dollars

ryanwaggoner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#161

Post by ams6110 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #151
didip wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"pre-existing condition" what does it mean? And how can old people avoid having pre-existing condition? Does that mean one has to be insured continuously to make sure no pre-existing condition arises in-between insurance gap? I'm new in the States and I hear this term is mentioned a lot.

Insurance is based on statistics. The insurance company is making a bet across a large number of people that the people will pay them more than they'll have to pay out. If you're already afflicted with some illness (a 'preexisting condition') then the insurance company has a pretty good idea of what you'll cost them: more than someone like me, who's young and relatively healthy. So naturally, the rate for someone lik…

People get all worked up about pre-existing conditions but how many people expect to be able to buy collision insurance after they've run their car into a tree? Home insurance after their house has burned to the ground? That's not insurance... that's a bail-out.

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#162

Post by didip »

tl;dr - I agree with the article. Get shit done to make yourself happy.

When reading a few responses here, I'm taken back with the comment "It's easy for you to preach, you don't have kids". In real life, I heard similar sentiments.

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the feeling when people said such things. Having kids is a choice, no? The same thing with living über-minimalistic life. People who don't have kids may have serious problems too.

Me and my wife, we don't have kids. But what we do have in terms of problems:

1. Selfish, arrogant, and wasteful parents. We helped them a lot and never received a single thanks. They love to have elaborate parties even though they are broke.

2. A 14 years old sister. Amazingly selfish little brat, complete disconnect between what she wants and what our parents could provide. Fucking android for 14 years old, what for? I cannot imagine her coding up some android app.

I don't have a million dollar and far from it. When I was 26, I swallowed the "American Dream" Kool-aid bottoms up and really needed that 1 million dollar:

We bought a big house, with .25 acre land. We owned 3 cars. I did all the stupid things that can only happen if you own a house: upgrading HVAC, kitchen, etc. etc.

Only 1 thing I did that wasn't stupid: paying for wife's school.

Now, we don't own TV, 1 car, 1 couch, When we went through the transformation, crazy things happen. My sisters respect me a lot more. When they want superfluous things and I said no, they listen far more than they ever did. Crazy things happen with the parents too. They listened, twice, when I told them about the elaborate parties.

Not needing money empowered me far more than money ever did. And I'm quite sure that I'm not unique in that regard. My future kids won't have lawn to run around or the latest apple gadgets to pimp around. Their life won't be govern by money. This plan may or may not work, my real life friends would be the judge of that.

To drive my points further, unrelated to my life story, several tech co-founders have told me directly. "The best time to raise money, is when you don't need money".

Extra brownie point: To buy freedom into United States (the easy way), you really need a million dollar. http://bit.ly/9RItQM

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#163

Post by m4wk3r »

gnaritas wrote: post #118
m4wk3r wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not that absurd when you consider opportunity costs. even if your actual expenses are only 10k/yr, at a 7% avg rate of return, after 17 years you're down 170k plus ~140k in lost interest. at 20k/yr you hit 340k plus ~280k in lost interest.

This presumes people who don't have kids save the money instead, which quite frankly isn't at all true. People who don't have kids in large part just never learn to tighten their budget the way parents do, they live a higher cost of living lifestyle; in short, they act like single people. Now you could say "oh but I'd live broke like parents do and save the money" but frankly I wouldn't believe anyone who said that f…

i'd love to see that data. my runway's ~4 years long.. all savings. no children.

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#164

Post by nitrogen »

shock-value wrote: post #87
kenjackson wrote: post #22

I think Ryan misses the point for most people. I do want a "million" dollars for freedom, but it's not just to go to Thailand. In fact I don't really like traveling, but I'd pay a lot if you could teleport me instantly. I want the freedom to work on what I want to work on AND to buy what I want. I'm tired of saying, "I won't get that TV now, because in 12 months that TV is coming out". Or "lets wait 8 months for the…

What? Building an OS is just the cost of a laptop and test device (~$1000 at most), playing Madden costs you $60 + $200 console, the puzzle is just the cost of the newspaper, and depending on what you mean by "rewiring" and your level of know-how, that project shouldn't be out-of-this-world expensive either. Not anything like a million dollars, or even $15k for that matter. To be honest, I think your post illustrates…

I have to disagree with your last paragraph. To an extent, there is a threshold below which adding more luxury will make one happier. For example, I am much happier with my new car than my old one, even though it's actually older (1994 vs 1998) and despite it costing me more.

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#165

Post by pmcginn »

ams6110 wrote: post #161
steveklabnik wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance is based on statistics. The insurance company is making a bet across a large number of people that the people will pay them more than they'll have to pay out. If you're already afflicted with some illness (a 'preexisting condition') then the insurance company has a pretty good idea of what you'll cost them: more than someone like me, who's young and relatively healthy. So naturally, the rate for someone lik…

People get all worked up about pre-existing conditions but how many people expect to be able to buy collision insurance after they've run their car into a tree? Home insurance after their house has burned to the ground? That's not insurance... that's a bail-out.

If you look at the history of health care, it didn't start out that way. Before World War II, people generally paid out of pocket for most medical expenses, but also carried health insurance for cataclysmic events.

In WWII, the US government imposed wage caps in an attempt to stop inflation.

Stuck offering the same wages, companies had to offer other perks to their employees to attract and retain the best and brightest, and often chose health insurance as one of said perks. As health insurance became too common to be considered a perk, and was just thought of as part of the standard package, companies expanded what they covered.

Eventually we got to a place where something as routine and expected as an annual checkup at the doctor's must be bargained down to a $5 copay.

The evolution of health care absolutely fascinates me. There is a pretty common thread of government intervention having far-reaching and often unseen implications.

Medical licensing, for example, is another reason why health care is so expensive. In Ye Olden Times, someone who wanted to set bones would apprentice, learn the art, and then set about it. If you broke a bone, you went to him. After medical licencing, and the expensive schooling it entails, you go to the emergency room, with all the associated costs.

Now, the obvious bright side is that a well-rounded, licensed doctor in an emergency room may recognize a secondary affliction that a bone-setter would have missed. Being forced to go to a doctor for something that's been done by tradesmen for ages probably saves lives.

But, it removes choice, and it raises costs.

How you're willing to balance those three is largely ideological.

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#166

Post by Sandman »

sp4rki wrote: post #100
Locke1689 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't talk about the college and home ownership questions other than to say that families have figured out how to live happy, healthy lives on far, far less. Go to a good state school, get some scholarships, don't live in Manhattan. This is a poor answer. Just because other people are happy with something doesn't mean everyone is. What do you mean "don't live in Mahnattan"? I want to live in Manhattan. Who are you…

Your dreams and desires have nothing to do with living a fulfilling "dignified" life. His answer is so full of truth. You don't need to live in Manhattan to be happy, the same way you don't need to be in the bay area to start a successful startup. If you think that the only way to be happy (in your case) is to live in Manhattan, then you have bigger problems with your priorities than the amount of money you need to l…

Will you be as happy as if you had a Jaguar?

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#167

Post by Swannie »

tptacek wrote: post #50
yummyfajitas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your article doesn't really support your position: "The government says families in the top-third income bracket will spend $279,450 to raise a child born in 2005 through age 17 -- or about $16,000 a year. " Also from the article: "Add in extras like private school, a nanny and a flat-screen TV set in a kid's bedroom, and that figure climbs to $1.6 million." "In San Diego, Jacqueline Jones recently rang in her fifth…

We spent a lot on food (I goof around with cooking) and there is no way it is costing us $32,000 to raise both our children. Even if you normalized for the premium we pay on our mortgage to be in a neighborhood with good public schools, I don't think we're in that ballpark. I wonder how much of this is just people sending their kids to absurd private schools.

Add in the parents food!

If we accept that raising a child is a "full time job" (in reality it is more hours... not sure on the effort though), for their first five years, then all of the food of that full time parent eats, etc. adds in to that cost ;-P

You can argue that they would have eaten that themselves, however if they weren't full time caring, they would be out, earning. So one way or another you need to include child care costs: food and necessities for the primary carer, or day care/nanny costs.

I think that a lot of parents end up spending more than they need to with their children because they pander to their food requests. Learn to cook food that your children will eat, that is a simplified version of what you will eat (like my parents did)!

That said, I must learn to fix my own eating habits, then work on those of my girlfriend with her... then we might actually stand a chance at that last one if we get to that stage :-P

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#168

Post by evgeny0 »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #9
marknutter wrote: post #4

The "HN Users, please upvote this" banner at the bottom is disconcerting. If HN is becoming a place people are desperate to get their stories voted up on, I fear the quality is going to start decreasing dramatically in the coming months.

That's a Wordpress plugin called "WP Greet Box" [1] and this message is only shown to users coming from HN, not everyone. Also, you'll be happy to know that I get grief for it every time one of my posts lands on the homepage :) I understand your concern, but it's really just a reminder to vote the article up if you enjoyed it. I frequently read good articles and then forget to vote them up because something else catc…

Have you done A/B testing on that, ie. whether you get more or fewer upvotes with the reminder?

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#169

Post by wyclif »

brc wrote: post #147
rationalbeaver wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the vacation you take shortly before the baby arrives. The wife and I took one (though I refuse to call it that). For the record, we probably spent about $250 on the whole trip (including fuel, lodging, food, etc).

We took one as well, but didn't know it had a name. I got a last minute deal and it cost a few hundred bucks as well.

Before or after conception? We took one before and just called it a "honeymoon."

Re: You don't really want a million dollars

#170

Post by [deleted] »

henry81 wrote: post #12
byoung2 wrote: post #2

One of the hardest parts of just hopping on a plane to some exotic destination is figuring out what to do with your "stuff" back home. People think that with a million dollars they'll pay off the house, car, quit their jobs and travel the world. Instead, they should consider selling the car and house (or renting it out) and living abroad instead of traveling. I have stayed in the Philippines for months at a time for…

I have a collapsible table, inflatable mattress, laptop, and 24" monitor. Everything I own can fit in my car. I need more money. Sleeping on the floor was not fun. I have money, I'm just kind of uber frugal. It's a nice air mattress, though.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN