It's simple. Make $100K, live near people making $90K = rich. Make $100K, live near people making $110K = poor.
make $100k, spend $85k = happiness
make $100k, spend $101k = misery
21–30 of 190 posts
It's simple. Make $100K, live near people making $90K = rich. Make $100K, live near people making $110K = poor.
make $100k, spend $85k = happiness
make $100k, spend $101k = misery
It's simple. Make $100K, live near people making $90K = rich. Make $100K, live near people making $110K = poor.
Make $100K, meet basic expectations for standard of living with $20K to spare = feel comfortably well-off
Make $100K, do not meet basic standard of living expectations = feels poor.
Have enough money to blow a few million investing in startups just for the learning experience = rich.
The catch is that living near people making more is likely to raise your standard of living expectations (but does not have to). Also, the cost of a particular standard of living is determined (roughly) by the market rather than its worth to you. For example living in Cambridge, MA costs more than living in Hudson, MA, whether you actually value that or not.
Perhaps it's because the definition of "rich" that they would need to feel is one where they'd never have to work again if they didn't want to. The article points out an annual income of $172,000 as being rich, but by implication, these people still have to work for their money. Therefore probably don't feel "rich" If they could maintain that income or even half that income in perpetuity without working. If they coul…
"The article points out an annual income of $172,000 as being rich, but by implication, these people still have to work for their money." I think the real issue is that someone making 300,000 probably doesn't have much more disposable income than someone making 80,000. Whatever extra money they have is likely just going to a slightly nicer house, their IRA, dental insurance, a slightly better preschool for their kids…
This is just a tangent, but I wonder whether Robert Gibbs really quit at least partly because his salary was too low. (That’s what Obama’s remark about his departure seems to suggest.) I don’t think you become Press Secretary of the White House because of the salary, you become Press Secretary because you are passionate about it. (For all you cynics out there: replace “passionate about it” with “power hungry”.) You c…
Perhaps it's because the definition of "rich" that they would need to feel is one where they'd never have to work again if they didn't want to. The article points out an annual income of $172,000 as being rich, but by implication, these people still have to work for their money. Therefore probably don't feel "rich" If they could maintain that income or even half that income in perpetuity without working. If they coul…
I think what people are really searching for is satisfaction. If they define satisfaction as being top 5% in wealth, then they'll probably have a long road to satisfaction. As for me, and I suspect others here, I'm satisfied when creating value. Dollars made is just a fallible measure of how much value has been created.
Sometimes I get jealous of people at work who seem to have nicer things. Then a few days later they start to complain about not having money, and I'm reminded that I don't really need a TV, much less a 52-inch what-have-you. Nor do I need to replace my nearly 20 year old car with something newer just because I can. Or more realistically: I don't need to get a new car because someone else I know bought a Z3.
Now there are four ways that I am aware of to make more than about 200k/year.
1. Be an investor/entrepreneur in your own company.
2. Have stock in a company that IPOs or get bought.
3. Work in high finance at a well performing hedge fund or a maor wall street firm.
4. Be a senior partner in a major law firm or an experienced surgeon in an in-demand specialty. Though you'll still top out at about 500k, at least according to glassdoor.com.
Did I miss any?
Every time I read an article like this, I think of all the people I know who are well off, yet appear to be miserable. Then I want to share with them this old wisdom from "The Ethics of the Fathers": "Who is wise? One who learns from every man." "Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations." "Who is honorable? One who honors his fellows." "Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his lot."
Edit: I found the comment: 'I bet that 9 times out of 10, "I need more money" should really be rephrased as "I need less stuff"'. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2025234
It's simple. Make $100K, live near people making $90K = rich. Make $100K, live near people making $110K = poor.
It's not that simple. It's more like Make $100K, meet basic expectations for standard of living with $20K to spare = feel comfortably well-off Make $100K, do not meet basic standard of living expectations = feels poor. Have enough money to blow a few million investing in startups just for the learning experience = rich. The catch is that living near people making more is likely to raise your standard of living expect…