11–20 of 94 posts
A few years ago I saw that this figure was admitted to be an understatement for folks who live in coastal cities. This was also before COVID-era inflation hit. I'd think in the SF area, the number would be closer to triple this, or possibly higher.
> Since there is an upper limit to money’s effect on joy — studies have shown that global happiness tops out at income levels of about $75,000 a year — chasing infinite wealth may be psychologically futile. A few years ago I saw that this figure was admitted to be an understatement for folks who live in coastal cities. This was also before COVID-era inflation hit. I'd think in the SF area, the number would be closer…
It's interesting to me how the mainstream news organizations are supposed to be synthesizing a constant stream of the latest and most important information, and yet breaking news happens faster on social media and the think pieces, such as this one, are basically rehashes of Reddit comments from 10 years ago.
Because those comments were the first time in human history this was discussed?
Every medium curates and reproduces messages.
It's interesting to me how the mainstream news organizations are supposed to be synthesizing a constant stream of the latest and most important information, and yet breaking news happens faster on social media and the think pieces, such as this one, are basically rehashes of Reddit comments from 10 years ago.
This is the NYT Magazine though. Longer pieces about less-important issues are common.
I remember my early research classes (~2001), when they were upheld by my teachers to be the creme de la creme of publications. My how times have changed.
It's interesting to me how the mainstream news organizations are supposed to be synthesizing a constant stream of the latest and most important information, and yet breaking news happens faster on social media and the think pieces, such as this one, are basically rehashes of Reddit comments from 10 years ago.
To give an example, the book "How to retire young" from 1989 at https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781556231537 .
The article seriously downplays the role of luck here but it isn't wrong. If you live judiciously and save as much as you can by doing so, you reach a point where you can live judiciously without going into the office every day. The common thread is that just because you can buy something, or can qualify for a particular mortgage, doesn't mean you should if you're goal is to "retire" early. One of the engineers I wor…
Sounds like achiever/explorer/killer/socializer?
Don't have kids! Easy, done.
And even assuming everything is good on that front, you're still looking at $300-400k in college tuition (in 2024 dollars) if you let your kids pick any school. You can tell them that you can only afford a community college or inexpensive public school, but how many parents would feel comfortable doing that after retiring at a very young age?
I guess you can bundle the message with a reminder that the reason you were around a ton when they were growing up was because you FIRE'd, but given how oppositional teens can be, I'd expect that this would cause resentment in a lot of cases.
> [she] retired at 49 with $1.3 million in savings. That doesn't not seem like nearly enough. How does she afford health insurance? I would be terrified that after a prolonged downturn you'd be left with nothing. And Social Security in the US pays less the less you work.
"Enough" is a function of how much you have and how much you need. 25x annual spend is a common heuristic for the required net worth before you can safely retire. And the older you are, the less margin of safety you need. 4% of $1.3 million is $52k, which is enough to live quite comfortably in many places.
> [she] retired at 49 with $1.3 million in savings. That doesn't not seem like nearly enough. How does she afford health insurance? I would be terrified that after a prolonged downturn you'd be left with nothing. And Social Security in the US pays less the less you work.