On Quitting • Hacker News Board

Re: On Quitting

#141

Post by YuriNiyazov » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

gregd wrote: post #140

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, basically: if you got fired tomorrow, four people would be homeless, and 2 people would be foodless because you don't have any savings, and you consider yourself to be a responsible human. Bravo.

What's interesting to me is that you've made an absolute judgement call on me and my worth as a human, based solely on my questioning an income large enough to squirrel away 10-20% of my income, when you know nothing about me or what I do while walking in this world. So basically, yes, my entire family would be homeless if I were to get fired tomorrow. This has caused unimaginable stress on me, being the sole breadwi…

For you to assume that someone who can afford to take a few months away from work is a trust fund baby speaks volumes about how you do.

And yea, I stand by my statement, even though it makes me sound like a dick. How well you are prepared for "when the shit hits the fan" (in the order of most probable to least, so don't think I have a basement full of guns and canned food like a Mormon would. As far as eventualities go, getting fired is the most likely one to happen, and the Apocalypse is pretty low on that list), even if it never does, matters just as much, if not more, than what you do day to day, in my evaluation of what a responsible human is.

You keep on and on about how no one here knows anything about you, and that's irrelevant. Whether someone lives beyond their means or not is not dependent on their personal situation, it's a calculation of "money in, money out". It doesn't matter that all of the things you are spending your money on are obligations, rather than toys. It just means you took on obligations in your life above your means. That's irresponsible.

Re: On Quitting

#142

Post by brnlsl » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #107

brnlsl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kinda stuff just drives me nuts. No, they're not all trust fund kids. The OP quit her job at Dropbox(!), and it looks like her previous jobs were at Squarespace(!) and MailChimp(!). I can only assume that she is highly skilled and productive and has been well compensated for it for years. Perhaps she saved up? Some people have good jobs and save money. Is that hard to understand?

You know the average American is incapable of saving even 5% of their income, right? That's why this is so unbelievable to some.

I'm not saying that everyone should have the luxury to leave their job if they aren't happy, and if you don't then there is something wrong with you. I'm saying that the implication that if someone does have that luxury it's because they're rich (trust fund) kids is ridiculous.

It's not like she said "I quit my job on a whim and am going to go travel through Europe for a year to find myself". She's clearly a talented person with a sought-after skill and she probably knows she'll be able to find another job, this one just wasn't working out.

"You know the average American..." - She's not an average American. She worked at Dropbox. She is a tech-industry professional that has worked at some highly successful companies for a number of years.

Re: On Quitting

#143

Post by icedchai » Fri, Oct 02, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

brnlsl wrote: post #142

icedchai wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the average American is incapable of saving even 5% of their income, right? That's why this is so unbelievable to some.

I'm not saying that everyone should have the luxury to leave their job if they aren't happy, and if you don't then there is something wrong with you. I'm saying that the implication that if someone does have that luxury it's because they're rich (trust fund) kids is ridiculous. It's not like she said "I quit my job on a whim and am going to go travel through Europe for a year to find myself". She's clearly a talented…

By "Average American" I meant a person with typical (bad) personal finance skills who doesn't save. They simply spend everything they make. And usually then some, getting into CC debt.

Re: On Quitting

#144

Post by mistermann » Sun, Oct 04, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #40

mistermann wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We own our home and both cars. Whether that is possible depends a lot on where you live - from what I can tell, outside of a few major cities there are plenty of places in the US where you can buy a house for <$200k in the US, good luck with that anywhere in Canada.

But you choose where you live. I do not live in SF, despite the nice weather, because I am not willing to spend a million bucks for a basic house.

On an affordability (cost vs earning power) basis, houses are extremely expensive everywhere in Canada - we are on the same trajectory the US was with their housing bubble, but about 2 years behind - the difference is, ours never burst, and we have surpassed the peaks attained in the US.

Re: On Quitting

#145

Post by mistermann » Sun, Oct 04, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #125

mistermann wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We own our home and both cars. Whether that is possible depends a lot on where you live - from what I can tell, outside of a few major cities there are plenty of places in the US where you can buy a house for <$200k in the US, good luck with that anywhere in Canada.

I realize that things have changed, but around 15 years ago, a friend of mine sold her ~$30,000 house in a city in Saskatchewan to move to a ~$20,000 house in the country. Hard to imagine that housing prices have gone up 10x in that time.

If you're retired or can work remotely, and don't mind missing out on all the culture and activities available in a city, sure you can move to a cheap house in rural Canada. The difference is, in the US you don't have to, you can have both in many places. Low affordability, like in San Fransisco, is an anomaly in the US, in Canada it is the norm.