Live data from Hacker News

How I live on $7,000 per year

earlyretirementextreme.com

71–80 of 222 posts

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#71
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus he has the shittiest $82 health insurance plan he could find, and he doesn't calculate the costs of what will happen if he gets sick. A bigger issue with the cheap health plans is they tend to have a very high deductible, usually in the $2000 - $3000 range (his is $3500! http://earlyretirementextreme.com/my-hdhp-hsa-and-some-comme... ). If you end up in the E.R. once for anything, like a fever, you have to pay t…

Yes, but you won't go bankrupt like so many people claim you will without health insurance. Why don't more people get this $80 plan?

A lot of people do get that plan.

And a lot of people get denied that plan.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#72
post #70
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you will go bankrupt if something serious happens while on this plan. Go see the details of his coverage, I bet it only covers basic things, and 50% of hospitalization drugs, and some crazy deductible. So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year.

"So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year." I already looked. $3000 deductible, no lifetime limits, and it covers major surgery, doctor visits are $40. If you want prescription coverage, there are plans less than $200 (in the $190 range) that cover 80% of prescriptions. Cable costs thi…

[deleted]

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#73
post #70
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you will go bankrupt if something serious happens while on this plan. Go see the details of his coverage, I bet it only covers basic things, and 50% of hospitalization drugs, and some crazy deductible. So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year.

"So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year." I already looked. $3000 deductible, no lifetime limits, and it covers major surgery, doctor visits are $40. If you want prescription coverage, there are plans less than $200 (in the $190 range) that cover 80% of prescriptions. Cable costs thi…

I didn't see any plans like that. What's the exact name?

If you're hospitalized, hist $40 doctor visit is every time doctor checks on him for 10 seconds. (That's true of any plan though.)

If here were a magical $90 plan that covers everything (or almost everything), nobody would pay for $1000 ones.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#74
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It disappoints me, but I have to agree with you (at least in part, I wouldn't call his story garbage). I say it's disappointing because his blog really inspired me to make some changes and I agree with the overall thrust of what he's saying. But the problem I have is figuring out how he accumulated his wealth. Of course, being a former physicist you'd think spelling that out in a simple spreadsheet would be a trivial…

It's not that hard to accumulate $100K if you're in IT. Just working for $100-150K a year and investing $20-30K annually should do it very quickly. Now accumulating $1M in a span of 5-10 years is much more challenging. I'm yet to solve that problem.

As does working for $40k a year and investing 30k annually which is what I did. There's no stock market magic required.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#75
post #70
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you will go bankrupt if something serious happens while on this plan. Go see the details of his coverage, I bet it only covers basic things, and 50% of hospitalization drugs, and some crazy deductible. So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year.

"So if he gets cancer or heart disease (most common serious illnesses), he is fucked, and will be fucked every year, if he can still afford that insurance after the first year." I already looked. $3000 deductible, no lifetime limits, and it covers major surgery, doctor visits are $40. If you want prescription coverage, there are plans less than $200 (in the $190 range) that cover 80% of prescriptions. Cable costs thi…

Well, the "no lifetime limits" is thanks to the legislative healthcare reforms that were driven by a need to reduce the number of medical bankruptcies, so obviously that's a good step towards making healthcare more affordable to people who previously would have been driven into bankruptcy.

But a $3000 yearly deductible is still likely to be utterly unaffordable to a significant portion of the uninsured, and it would be surprising if they weren't subject to copays as well.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#76
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm intrigued by your comment that you have an advanced degree in economics. I don't, but it seems obvious to me that you're missing something (I'm happy to be corrected here!): the problem isn't the lack of consumers so much as a lack of incentive to produce. If everyone becomes an entrepreneur, compelled to be stingy and just do productive things for the fun of it, then they're still being productive, and the world…

Actually that is NOT at all what my argument is. My argument is that people can produce as much as they want, but you still need someone to consume your product. Just being productive gives you only the supply side, but what about demand, why make would make something when people do not demand it. Remember PG's rule: Make something that people want. Want is demand. You cannot make things without taken into contention…

> but you still need someone to consume your product

Do we? We're not trying to make a lot of money, just enough to get by. And we're talking about an entire economy here, not about the profitability of an individual business. The whole point is that people in this model don't really care about how much money they're making (or, put another way, they place a very high value on their time).

The question is whether there would be something fundamentally wrong with a society in which people spent very little, but were nonetheless productive doing "their own thing".

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#77
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rorrr said, but not in quite such an inflammatory tone. I think it's great that you've found a lifestyle you enjoy that also allows you to get by with very little money. What I take issue with is your judgmental tone in the article - as if there's something wrong with everyone else for not wanting to live in an RV. This country faces a dire economic crisis, and there is no doubt that the income of the middle cla…

especially when your lifestyle was enabled (albeit, in this specific instance), apparently, by public spending (grad school, postdoc, and subsidized higher education in his country of origin) you're effectively a net neutral on the system, however, when you factor in all that society has invested in you, you're very much a net negative.

I think you can make that argument for my country of origin. They can add negative for the brain drain as far as I'm concerned. I guess the same holds for a lot of Indian or Chinese students who came to the US. As for grad school and postdocing, the way it works is that this has very little to do with training or investing. I feel I earned every cent they paid me for doing research.

Grad school and the postdoc system pretty much a cheap way for universities to get labor at 50-70% of the private market rates. Universities call grad students "students" so they can get around various labor laws and not paying for things like health insurance. The use postdocs because it's easier to lay off people compared to staff scientists.

So they hire persons with masters degrees to do grunt work for 25k/year and call them grad students. Then they hire the smart ones with PhDs for 40k/year and call them postdocs.

Basically you're put in front of a computer or in a lab and told to work on this task much like private industry except maybe your work is a bit more interesting(?) You write reports about your work called "papers" and after 4 years you write a giant progress report and call it a "PhD Dissertation". There's very little actual training or education involved in this process. Or at least not more than you find in the private sector.

It's pretty much labor like it is in private industry. I guarantee you that without grad students and postdocs, very few scientific papers would be published, because grads and postdocs are the ones doing the actual research.

When you see news of some professor discovering something, you can pretty much be sure that it was discovered at 11 in the evening by some grad student or postdoc of his. He was just the manager and subsequently in charge of public relations. That's fine BTW ... it's not like Steve Jobs single handedly built the iphone, but he still gets all the credit for it.

I myself published over 30 papers in my career, many of them first authored putting in 100 hours week a lot of the time, so I think I earned the money I made.

You can argue whether those papers are the equivalent of an $800 toilet seat, but that's a different discussion altogether. I put in the sweat equity "on the bench". I earned that money.

Professors mostly spend their time teaching, managing their workers, excuse me, "teaching" their grad students and postdocs, and writing grant proposals. Academia has the same typical structure as anywhere else. The only time you spend any meaningful effort being "educated" without giving back is as an undergraduate.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#78
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that hard to accumulate $100K if you're in IT. Just working for $100-150K a year and investing $20-30K annually should do it very quickly. Now accumulating $1M in a span of 5-10 years is much more challenging. I'm yet to solve that problem.

As does working for $40k a year and investing 30k annually which is what I did. There's no stock market magic required.

I think that's just impossible. On 40K you will pay

$580 medicare

$1,680 FICA

$3,410 federal

$1,824 state (NY), and maybe some local, depending on where you live.

If you can invest $30K after that, you're some motherfucking frugal genius.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#79

At some point during my college career I learned about the Rat Race and was propelled to discard my desire to climb the corporate ladder and decided to live a life similar to jfoucher (How I live on $7000 per year). However, after living frugally for a couple years I saved up enough money and decided to travel the world. Fast forward to today - after witnessing first hand the lives of those less fortunate while trave…

I pretty much spend my time trying to "educate" unaware, materialistic consumers. I've affected more people than I can count (those who've told me) and presumable more beyond those (who didn't tell me).

So I have a blog, a book, a forum, and now a wiki. There's not really a rat race option for what I do, but if there was, maybe I'd take it.

Incidentally, I don't really have a problem with people using the freedom they've gained from stepping off the treadmill to do nothing. If someone wants to use their freedom to become a "beach bum" I have no problem with that.

Re: How I live on $7,000 per year

#80
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who is going to consume these products if people are saving? Peter Schiff tells the story of a six guys stranded on a deserted island: five Asians and an American. They divide up the work as follows: one Asian hunts, one Asian fishes, one Asian gathers vegetables, one Asian cooks, and one Asian tends the fire. The American has the job of eating. Peter says that an economist would look at the situation and explain t…

This is clearly the "build it and they will come" bullshit. I had hoped the Hacker News crowd would be the first to recognize that demand doesn't just "appear."

Supply and demand are just two sides of the same coin. To Apple, the iPhone is supply. Apple supplies iPhones to meet consumer demand. But the iPhone is also Apple's demand. Its production of IPhones determines how much other things it will be able to buy.

To consumers, the IPhone is something they want (demand). But their demand is determined by what they supply. A programmer ability to pay for (demand) an iPhone depends on his ability to supply programs that someone else wants.

"Build it and they will come" is truth as long as you're building something someone wants. A farmer who decides to plant corn or soybeans will have a demand for his crop, because people want corn and soybeans. The price/demand fluctuates based on how badly they want it.

Programming is no different. If you build something people want, they will come. The problem is that programming has so many degrees of freedom and it's so scalable that it's a lot easier than farming to supply something that no one wants.

Post reply on HN