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

Early Retirement (2006)

philip.greenspun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 308 posts

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#281

Post by Psyonic »

voidfunc wrote: post #196
snek_case wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I'd be happy enough just maintaining my current lifestyle more or less, but yes, we as software developers tend to be paid relatively well, so just matching that can be quite expensive. I also feel kind of uncomfortable with the idea of retiring without a little bit of extra safety margin in case of economic turmoil. If 2M is enough to retire, I'd probably want 2.5 just to be extra safe. My current job pa…

The low stress jobs are the key. If I have 2-3 million saved, do I really want to grind at a FAANG or equivalent? Theres low key startups and enterprise dev jobs that are much less stressful and still pay around 120-150K which keeps healthcare covered, CoL covered, and keeps your nest-egg intact.

IMO your view of stress at FAANG vs elsewhere is off. Some of the least stressed engineers I know work for the big names.

I'm sure there are stressed engineers there as well, but I'd be surprised if it's actually a higher %.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#282

Post by ghaff »

cko wrote: post #150
justinram11 wrote: post #105

Perhaps I'm a bit naive in my mid-20's, but I actually don't think that I'd hate working 15-20 hours a week (at a low-stress company) for the rest of my life. Or at least until I was physically unable. I've recently been wondering if I should instead be trying to view life as a "sustainable marathon" rather than trying to cash out quickly (FIRE).

A 15-20 hours a week job sounds quite pleasant. I wouldn't mind working 3-4 hours a day. I would mind 8-10 hours though.

15-20 hrs/week though still at least implies that you're available 15-20 hours in a given week. For me, part-time would have to be fewer hours on average but also the ability to head off somewhere for a few weeks.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#283

Post by ghaff »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #275
pugworthy wrote: post #13

A tangent comment, but his website is such a fun throwback. I remember finding the Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing ( https://philip.greenspun.com/panda/ ) when it was first put up. What an amazing eye opener for me at the time to what the internet would/could be. Plus I loved his napkin-style diagrams and interspersed photos.

Every now and then I come across a link to one of his webpages. I'm glad he's kept them up for so long.

Travels with Samantha was probably one of the earliest things you really wanted to read on the Web: https://philip.greenspun.com/samantha/ That was in the days when you could have a personal homepage with "the" interesting stuff on the Web worth going to.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#284

Post by ghaff »

pikseladam wrote: post #10

I couldn't understand how he continues to work for harvard and still call himself retired.

It used to be a much cleaner division. You got your Rolex and you moved to Florida. (OK I exaggerate.)

But for many professional people in tech, it can mean doing some consulting/teaching/writing/whatever on the side. In fact, for me, one of my questions is what are some of the specific things it makes sense for me to do when I retire that are materially different/better than what I do today?

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#285

Post by dsizzle »

handrous wrote: post #64
flowerlad wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The greatest expense for me in retirement is now health insurance Obamacare changes that. If you don't have much income you get ACA federal tax credits.

ACA plans in my state expose you to over $20,000 in annual risk, for a family plan. That's assuming you don't end up with a huge "out of network" bill by accident (and their networks are terrible, so that's very possible). I think the "gold" plan is a little better (though a much worse deal if you're having to pay the full premium, overall) but I'm not sure how much income-based help you get for the top-tier (and sti…

The tax credits are the same regardless of your plan, and for modest income the credits are substantial: even for $100k, the credits are $500/mo for a family of 4. Not that healthcare still isn't a significant expense, but the assistance is meaningful.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#286

Post by ghaff »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #243
ghaff wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said they were a "burden." I was indicating that just because you've paid off your mortgage doesn't mean living in a house is free. I think you'll find those numbers are not especially high for a house. (As opposed to a condo which have their own fees.) My house is not especially large--but it is about 200 years old although renovated so budgeting a few hundred dollars per month for maintenance seems reasonab…

> I never said they were a "burden." I was indicating that just because you've paid off your mortgage doesn't mean living in a house is free. No one claimed it was free, and if it’s not a burden then what’s the problem? My point is that $80K without a mortgage or retirement allocation leaves significantly more money left over than $80K with those expenses. Where is the problem?

Of course. But my point was that your "spending money" may still need to budget $10+K/year to keep a roof over your head. (Of course, you can downsize and move someplace cheaper.)

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#287

Post by fogdart »

mlcrypto wrote: post #194
voidfunc wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you got lucky on a crypto-gamble and you think your situation applies to everyone? Help could mean a lot of things... it could mean $20K towards their down payment all the way up to buying the damn thing, the poster didn't really clarify. This whole "builds character" thing is a bunch of bullshit that people spout off to poo-poo those that have a leg up in life.

Its not a gamble. It's a sure thing that only people with the right mix of technical knowledge and Austrian economics can see

I can only assume your account is satire.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#288

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

kache_ wrote: post #278
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This post is not legal advice, consult an immigration lawyer, etc.) Yes and no. TN is technically only for specific professions drafted in like the 80s or something. It's incredibly stupid. For example, many Canadians use "Computer Systems Analyst" for their TN which explicitly forbids programming , as a programmer is not considered a professional job in the eyes of NAFTA. It's bananas. If you don't have a decent se…

Or you can do what I'm doing and make the big bucks working remotely out of a small town in Ontario for a SV company ;) Once you get to staff+ you effectively remove any real pay difference based on your locality.

I can neither confirm nor deny that I am doing the same.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#289

Post by brewdad »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #225
jorblumesea wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those premiums are significantly above what corporate employees pay. My premiums at my current and last job were way below those figures. Keep in mind "private employers" is a huge bucket and would encompass a wide range of companies, including smaller companies with likely small budgets. It is not reflective of many of the benefits many SWEs would get.

Again, I am talking about the total cost of insurance, not just the portion of the cost of insurance that an employer asks an employee to pay. Just because an employer is paying for $18k out of $20k of your annual health insurance premiums (again, check code DD box 12 of your W2), does not mean that health insurance costs (meaningfully) less for an employer. It is simply a portion of your total compensation, which bo…

The employer's cost for my health insurance is largely irrelevant to me, the employee. There is zero reason that if my employer's cost was zero, that those dollars would be passed along to me unless the employment market forced them to.

Re: Early Retirement (2006)

#290

Post by bloaf »

showerst wrote: post #34
bloaf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do a little algebra and make some simple assumptions, it turns out that "years of work required for retirement" is a function of your savings ratio only, that is savings/take-home pay. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...

I like MMR, but like many people in that genre these over-simplified calculations only really work for a very narrow set of circumstances. What happens if you want to buy a condo in a competitive market that requires a 200k downpayment? Or have a medium-sized wedding? Or have two kids in day-care? I understand that the FIRE response would be that you don't _have_ to buy into all that stuff, but saying that it's just…

> What happens if you want to buy a condo in a competitive market that requires a 200k downpayment? Or have a medium-sized wedding? Or have two kids in day-care?

If you mean after you retire, you'd plan for those things within your 4% swr budget just like you would if you were making a salary.

If you mean before, then it depends on whether you're planning on getting married annually for the rest of your life, or if it is a one time expense. If it is a one time expense, I'm sure everyone here is capable of doing the math to figure out how much a large one-time expense will delay your retirement. (hint: it is one-time expense / earnings)

If it is recurring, then the math still applies.

Post reply on HN