How I live on $7,000 per year • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by rohit89 » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

ohashi wrote: post #143

colanderman wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then his food comes from his garden Not all of it. You obviously missed the link in that article to his FAQ answering every objection you raised: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/frequently-asked-questions ...a max of $1200/yr on food which means he has to work on that Right. His point is that you don't need income , not that you don't need to work . and he conveniently didn't calculate the opportunity costs Zero if…

I suppose my biggest objection is I hate his lifestyle. I like going out, I enjoy activities which are more often than not paid, I don't have a girlfriend who sits at home and cooks for me all the time. Just because one person is happy with a certain way of living doesn't mean everyone will be. I could do it like he does and simply be miserable.

I agree. I like going out to eat at good restaurants, attending a concert, maybe watch a game at a stadium. These cost money. Ultimately, to a certain extent money allows you to do things that give you enjoyment. If you can afford it, then go for it. After all, we have only one life to live.

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

#172

Post by nirvana » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 7:16 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #62

nirvana wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, that's not "basic economics". That's neo-keynesian economics. (They call themselves keynesians, but they aren't following what keynes said.) The word "capitalism" comes from the word Capital. You accumulate capitals so that you can invest it in productive assets. You could blow your money on a consumptive lifestyle, as you advocate. Or you could save that money, and use it to start a business. Notice, your…

Every Austrian economics school recommendation should immediately be followed by the caveat: The Austrian school of economics is like the anti-climate change minority, but in economics. If you accept their premises you are in the minority of professionally recongized economics.

If you had an economic argument to make, you would make it.

Your reliance on ad hominem backed by the fallacy of appeal to authority where the authority is non-existent shows that you are making an ideological political claim, not an economic one.

The comparison to global warming is also hilarious, because, like the political ideology you're espousing it too has been disproven by science. I can do it right here: IR absorption of CO2 is less than water vapor. If you understood the science of global warming, you'd be devastated.

The thing is, when you understand a subject, you can defend your position with arguments. You don't need to rely in the low form of characterizing your opponent or their arguments in derogatory ways. You can simply make counter arguments, presumably, if you're right, superior counter arguments.

That you have chosen not to shows that you've replaced ideology for thinking.

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

#173

Post by nirvana » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 7:21 PM UTC

h6165 wrote: post #133

nirvana wrote: post #10

I've been living on $13,754 per year for the past 4 years. (Average as of last month.) There are two of us, so, double that and you have the average cost over that period. While we've been doing it, we've been traveling full time, spent the last year in europe living in AirBNB pads, and doing our startup. We buy a MacBook Pro each year and an iPad or iPhone each year as needed, with the old one going to the other per…

Is it really possible to do a startup while travelling? Don't people expect you to be sort of more stationary/accessible ? How has your experience been on this?

Hasn't been a problem. We have a mail service and US phone numbers, and so most of the people we have to formally do business with assume we're in the USA.

There is the impact of pulling up roots and moving to another country... and when you're working really hard there's a lot less sightseeing than there would be otherwise.

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

#174

Post by nirvana » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 7:29 PM UTC

ahsanhilal wrote: post #36

nirvana wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, that's not "basic economics". That's neo-keynesian economics. (They call themselves keynesians, but they aren't following what keynes said.) The word "capitalism" comes from the word Capital. You accumulate capitals so that you can invest it in productive assets. You could blow your money on a consumptive lifestyle, as you advocate. Or you could save that money, and use it to start a business. Notice, your…

Ok let's all save money and try to be entrepreneurs, is that what you are advocating? Lets see, in your economy we are going to have a lot of producers, but who is going to consume these products if people are saving. Now if you say China does it, then I would answer back that China does it because it has the US and Europe as huge consumption bases for its produced goods. You are trying to give me an economics lesson…

"I actually have an advanced degree in economics,"

If this were true, you'd be able to comprehend what I said, and you'd be able to repeat my argument correctly, and then you'd be able to present a counter argument based on the science of economics. Your appeal to authority just tells me you made a really bad economic decision yourself.

I'm not going to debate your political ideology, because, why should I? The current economic state of the USA proves that endless government and consumer spending does not produce a healthy economy.

Your ideology is disproven by reality. The "stimulus" resulted in higher unemployment and a worse off economy. Bush's handing out "stimulus" checks to the people did the same thing.

Reality has already disproven your ideology.

Now, I know, having seen your ideology before, all the standard excuses. "The patient died because we didn't apply ENOUGH leeches!"

But they are not economic arguments. They are ideological ones. They are based on trying to rationalize a particular set of political positions. There's really no point in attempting to debate your desire to rationalized. I can't stop it.

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

#175

Post by nirvana » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 7:48 PM UTC

ahsanhilal wrote: post #63

sycr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you are being down voted, just so you know, is because you're being flippant and dismissive.

I am not trying to be dismissive, but I am trying to talk with some theoretical base. Initially Nirvana derided my claims, in my opinion, without producing an actual theoretical base for his claims. He also said I should learn economics from Hazlitt's economic philosophy, rather than from a university, which is quite demeaning.

I'm sorry you feel demeaned by my advice to read Hazlitt's book in order to learn some basic economics. I didn't think that it would be appropriate to advocate that everyone should go to a university to learn economics, especially given, as as you later made clear, that some universities don't even teach economics to those who get degrees in it.

You have no theoretical base. You are regurgitating a political ideology that is, quite frankly, nonsense. You focus on demand, when it is irrelevant to this discussion, and your argument presumes that "advising people to save is bad" because "if everyone saved there would be no demand".

Obviously, when people run their lives prudently, they don't eliminate all spending (and thus all demand is not eliminated). Obviously, consumers are not the only source of demand in an economy. And obviously you can't really defend your point and that is why you spend your time characterizing others -- and in fact your "economic" argument is really just disparaging a savings plan with a fallacious -- but oft repeated by political hacks-- story.

So, of course, I was dismissive. Your "argument" was easily dispatched.

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

#176

Post by jimbokun » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

liljimmytables wrote: post #154

asr wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think where I disagree with you (and the blog author) is your attitude toward work: Money is just a medium of exchange, right, but have you ever wondered what it is you're exchanging? It's life. Work isn't a waste of life. My goal in life is not to get to the end having worked as little as possible. Travel is fun, and educational, and good for you, but it's not the only thing. By all means live cheaply enough to al…

This is a good point. Here's something I've found when arguing about similar things: Some people define "work" as "unpleasant tasks I do to get money," and by this definition I support the OP. Minimise that crap, get it off your plate entirely if possible. These people would never consider a book that they wrote or an app that they made as being real income, even if it eclipsed their other income, because it was fund…

nirvana describes a life of traveling the world, buying a new computer every other year, and eating out a lot. Does not sound at all like "penny pinching" to me, just understanding what you actually value.

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

#177

Post by mattm » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 8:32 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #173

h6165 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really possible to do a startup while travelling? Don't people expect you to be sort of more stationary/accessible ? How has your experience been on this?

Hasn't been a problem. We have a mail service and US phone numbers, and so most of the people we have to formally do business with assume we're in the USA. There is the impact of pulling up roots and moving to another country... and when you're working really hard there's a lot less sightseeing than there would be otherwise.

What mail service do you use?

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

#178

Post by thenomad » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 8:47 PM UTC

erejacob wrote: post #149

ohashi wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose my biggest objection is I hate his lifestyle. I like going out, I enjoy activities which are more often than not paid, I don't have a girlfriend who sits at home and cooks for me all the time. Just because one person is happy with a certain way of living doesn't mean everyone will be. I could do it like he does and simply be miserable.

You could just do something else then. I'm not saying "everybody copy me". There are paid versions of my activities, but I eventually found the versions there were free or almost free. This holds for almost everything unless you insist on a particular paid version. For instance, when it comes to going out. Lots of people like that, but why are they really going out? Probably not to sit in a particular restaurant and…

In my experience, a lot of people do in fact enjoy going out to eat for the food, not merely the experience. You get a professional preparing excellent food, usually to a standard higher than you would easily manage at home (assuming you're going to good restaurants), and in a wider variety of cuisines than you can affordably stock up for, too.

Expansion on the previous point: I bounce around national cuisines quite a bit, because I'm a cook as a hobby, and whilst, say, a gumbo won't cost you mutch if you're regularly cooking Louisiana staples, cooking it ab initio from a cupboard that's normally cooking Italian-influenced meals will cost you a small fortune. A quick look at my Louisiana recipe book tells me I'd need to aquire cayenee, paprika, garlic salt, onion salt, white pepper, spiced sausage, Tabasco (specifically Tabasco) and a bunch of other stuff. Then you need to get in all the meat and veg, some of which may be difficult to aquire from local shops or require specialist outlets, which adds in travelling time and cost, and which you'll probably be paying for higher quality for - at least if you're serious about cooking and food - than you might for a common-or-garden meal. That makes your one gumbo cost almost as much as it would at a restaurant.

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

#179

Post by rorrr » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 9:03 PM UTC

gregatragenet wrote: post #109

rorrr wrote: post #25

Sorry, but this story is garbage. Rent/mortgage, retirement completely ignored. 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. On average people after 65 spend $2,920 per year on medical out of pocket expenses (Source: http://www.newretirement.com/Planning101/Rising_Medical_Cost... ) Then his food comes from his garden, which…

Hi rorrr, You are clearly on the treadmill. Yeah if you want to buy a new car every X years, and get a mortgage for an overpriced house you are not going to be able to live this lifestyle. You will probably have the lifestyle most enjoy. Maxed out credit cards, no savings, that big oh-shit moment in your mid-fifty's when you realize you've nothing saved for retirement... Not to burst your bubble, but his health plan…

I actually make quite a lot of money compared to the average US income, more than $100K/year. I do save an invest (max out IRA for me and my wife), and I do spend a lot, though I'm frugal compared to most of my friends. $100K in savings is not something amazing from my point of view.

I did however a realistic calculation of what will happen if I need, let's say, a week in an ICU and a month of hospitalization (you go skiing, you fall and hit a tree, you break your spine). I will be bankrupt. Even with my expensive insurance plan hospitalization can easily cost $10K/day, and most of the drugs you will be on, are only covered 80%. That's if you don't need some exotic drugs at $5K/shot.

I realize it's a gamble, but the stats do say that 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, and 68% of them had health insurance.

Sources:

http://www.pnhp.org/bankruptcy/state_by_state.pdf

http://www.pnhp.org/bankruptcy/Bankruptcy%20Fact%20Sheet%20-...

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

#180

Post by akeck » Sat, Oct 15, 2011, 9:49 PM UTC

stfu wrote: post #159

sevenproxies wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We buy a MacBook Pro each year and an iPad or iPhone each year as needed I don't understand this. You could be saving you self at least ~$1,300 a year, all for what? A slightly improved OS or hardware you don't really need. I'm earning ~$20,000 a year, saving ~$900 a month and I still consider those purchases excessive. I almost purchased an iPad last month but once I really though about it, I realise it would have…

Same here. Apple users baffle me time and time again. From his writings it appears as the only luxury items in his life are Apple products. I can understand the Apple "idea" working with people who have to buy "hipness" or just have enough to money to spend. But he seems to be definitely not "that" kind of person. Deeply fascinating fascinating a brand can reach such a level of devotion.

I've used Linux, Windows, and Mac laptops over the years. The thing that sells me on getting only Mac Laptops from now on isn't the design, it's the value retention. The retention of value is driven by the design and the demand from Apple fanatics of course, but it means that I can get most of the cost of a new Mac by selling my old one. A new one may be 1300.00, but I can get 700-900.00 for my old one. I am getting a new laptop every three years for 400-600.00.