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

The real use of money is to buy freedom

paraschopra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 303 posts

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#191

Post by sliverstorm »

Casseres wrote: post #29
vanderZwan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the following research, I guess $75K? http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/07/129703291/new-stud...

That's per year and doesn't keep up with inflation. To have financial independence, you need enough money so that $75k or whatever annual number you want is derived from the earnings of whatever your your sizable chunk of money is invested in.

What does financial independence have to do with that number? The article is about "happiness" and "enough". Fuck-you money is not required for either of those things.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#193

Post by bmelton »

gress wrote: post #189
bmelton wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, definitions have changed, completely. The average home size in 1950 was ~1000 square feet, while the average home size in 2004 is ~2400 square feet. Similarly, the 'sane working hours' you mention, generally speaking, were 48 hours a week or more. In the 'upper' middle class, more hours were spent at the office as well. Today, the average worker works ~37 hours. Assuming job accessibility (which I have no idea…

I think you're actually proving my point - a second car isn't an indicator of marvelous bounty. It's a liability required to support a necessary second job and higher debt load.

It probably says more about the courting culture and independence in America than anything else. I suspect (but have zero proof or support for) that fewer marriages are formed from high school sweethearts than was the case in the 50s, which means that many relationships start with 2 cars vs 1.

Beyond that, cars were still a relative novelty in the 50s, and ownership was more sparse. I'd have to research to see, percentage-wise, what the cost equated to. It's possible that their rarity meant that purchasing one car was equivalent to purchasing two, in today's age, but again, I don't have figures on that.

And, of course, I think you're dramatically underestimating the role of gender equality on the work force. Women work, many times because they choose to, not necessarily because they have to.

Regardless, the point you made simply isn't supportable by the raw facts that you presented, nor were necessarily the facts that you presented even factual. I don't disagree necessarily that the upper middle class of today is disadvantaged relative to the upper middle class of the 50s, but if that's the case, it's not because they worked less hours or owned larger homes.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#194

Post by sliverstorm »

base698 wrote: post #62
vanderZwan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the following research, I guess $75K? http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/07/129703291/new-stud...

For me personally I know it's way more than $75k but less than $200k. I have expensive hobbies and like to to travel without blowing my savings.

Of course expensive hobbies require more money. However the point of that article is (vaguely and generally across the people they studied) your expensive hobbies and traveling do not increase your happiness as much as the pursuit of the extra money decreases it. In other words, you get some combination of diminishing returns on happiness per dollar, and increasing cost of happiness per dollar. $75k is the proposed sweet-spot, where happiness gained per dollar spent is still high and happiness lost per dollar earned is still low to moderate.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#195

Post by sliverstorm »

archangel_one wrote: post #157
xioxox wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5k seems absurd, though there is a big differential in the UK between those who own a house and those who do not. If I lived in London, 1e6 GBP would be necessary for housing alone, a ridiculous sum compared to the average wage.

I do live in London, and while it's expensive, I can't see how you could need £100k annually simply for accommodation. Unless you have a very large family to support too?

Only an unwashed pleb would live in anything less than 20,000sq-ft, eh?

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#196

Post by bmelton »

gress wrote: post #190
bmelton wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. The lower bound on lower middle class is, according to Wikipedia, $32,500. There are plenty of houses available for purchase in the $60,000 range, which is well inside of affordability ranges. There are a plethora of rural homes available within those ranges, but that level of income isn't necessarily exclusionary to city dwelling either…

Are there plenty of jobs near those cheap houses?

In Cincinnati, Tampa, etc., one would have to assume so. Regardless, that wasn't the point -- the point was that

> The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner

is not a true statement. If you'd like to qualify it further, feel free. I suspect I'd have to research more to answer, and I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment you're suggesting, but presenting falsities as facts doesn't do any argument any particular good.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#197

Post by gress »

bmelton wrote: post #193
gress wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're actually proving my point - a second car isn't an indicator of marvelous bounty. It's a liability required to support a necessary second job and higher debt load.

It probably says more about the courting culture and independence in America than anything else. I suspect (but have zero proof or support for) that fewer marriages are formed from high school sweethearts than was the case in the 50s, which means that many relationships start with 2 cars vs 1. Beyond that, cars were still a relative novelty in the 50s, and ownership was more sparse. I'd have to research to see, perce…

That may be true. I think the more general point (which you seem to agree with) is that touting simplistic indicators and claiming that people are better off today, is inconclusive and by no means the 'given truth' that many here assert.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#198

Post by run4_too »

nexttimer wrote: post #80
miles wrote: post #21

Tim O'Reilly on money: It’s easy to get caught up in the heady buzz of making money. You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car — you need to pay attention or you’ll end up on the side of the road — but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations! Source: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-...

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we…

This essay is one of the easiest and simplest ways to show in clear terms that your opinion on money and wealth is simply incorrect:

http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#199

Post by bmelton »

gress wrote: post #197
bmelton wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably says more about the courting culture and independence in America than anything else. I suspect (but have zero proof or support for) that fewer marriages are formed from high school sweethearts than was the case in the 50s, which means that many relationships start with 2 cars vs 1. Beyond that, cars were still a relative novelty in the 50s, and ownership was more sparse. I'd have to research to see, perce…

That may be true. I think the more general point (which you seem to agree with) is that touting simplistic indicators and claiming that people are better off today, is inconclusive and by no means the 'given truth' that many here assert.

Yeah, I really don't know, to be honest. It depends, I'm sure, on which indicators one measures against.

I think in some ways, even the poor are better off. In some ways, even the wealthy are probably worse off. I agree that any notion of "We're all {better|worse} off than 1950" is naive without a greater degree of specificity. It's equivalent to saying that football was "better" in the 50s. How? Certainly not in player safety. Certainly not economically. In pure terms of game play, what metrics? Certainly not in passing. Etc.

Re: The real use of money is to buy freedom

#200

Post by run4_too »

wpietri wrote: post #183
flyinglizard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which allows the rich to draw back this value as they see fit. Lets imagine that Steve Jobs, instead of getting paid for his iPhones, sold them in exchange for a person's time. The average hourly wage in USA is approximately $24, meaning an iPhone would retail for abou…

> Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. Evidence? I think quite a lot of rich people are rich not because of an ability to create value, but an ability to extract cash. E.g., 95% of Wall Street's activity. And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value.

> 95% of Wall Street's activity.

I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable".

>And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value

Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth.

Post reply on HN