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

Being frugal is for the rich

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 305 posts

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#161

Post by adrianratnapala »

knuththetruth wrote: post #81
pitaj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific example you bring up seems to be a result of increased liability on the employer for employees. Hotels etc would rather contractors carry those liabilities, especially I imagine when it comes to possibly illegal immigrants.

Sure, but that's not some kind of neutral, organic development. It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, to increase their own wealth and power. Shifting all the "liability" onto workers, creating an economy where everyone but the wealthiest are fungible serfs, is a specific set of values and decisions advanced by these people because it benefits them.

> It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians,

So legislation purportedly for employee protection backfires by making direct hires uneconomical and you call this " something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians"?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#162

Post by gnicholas »

mod wrote: post #144
gnicholas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of this, but where is 2 mbps internet $80?

I pay $75/month for 10mbps upstream, 1mbps downstream DSL. That's the advertised speeds, I get lower speeds in practice. I'm not complaining. I'm happy to have those speeds as I live in a very rural area (South/Midwest). I can stream netflix or youtube without hitches, almost all the time.

Are we talking megabits or megabytes here? I'm guessing bits, but I would be a little surprised that this can stream at 1 megabit per second.

And I second @sokoloff—I've never heard of a plan that had an order of magnitude greater for upstream!

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#163

Post by sokoloff »

manigandham wrote: post #156
ikeyany wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others do it because it's cheaper than providing full-time salary+benefits. Average people don't really have the resources or connections to open a company.

What resources or "connections" do you need? Thinking you need all these things before you can start is the biggest obstacle to actually starting.

Realistically, you need a couple thousand dollars at an absolute barest minimum to open a company and strike out on your own.

Incorporation paperwork and filings, even for an LLC in an inexpensive state will be a few hundred, with an Inc generally more. Annual filing fees run $800 minimum in my state; that's if you do all the calculations and paperwork yourself.

Then, you need adequate capitalization for the company (to avoid it being regarded as under-capitalized should the question of piercing the corporate veil ever come up).

This must be used for working capital for inventory, WIP, raw materials, utilities, salary/living expenses, perhaps rent or transportation and needs to cover you between the time you start and when you are cashflow positive. You may need a license or permit from the town/city/AHJ to operate.

Telling someone living paycheck to paycheck to "just go start a company" is fairly unrealistic I think.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#164

Post by s73v3r_ »

iguy wrote: post #115
T2_t2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they also had less. This is the ... I'm not sure of the right word, paradox? duality? ... anyway, the problem/benefit of globalisation, that it leads to cheaper stuff. We all have more today, even on less money. Thought experiment: ask yourself when it was better to be poor: 1950, or 2018. In 1950 you could... go to the library? In 2018, even the very poor likely have a mobile phone, the internet, a games cons…

"Ironically, I think that is pretty much how all cities work since crime went away. The days of the poor occupying prime real estate near a city is pretty much over." This seems backwards. The poor never occupied prime (at the time) real estate, but cities did used to be more compact. The rise of crime (from the 60s) was one of the factors driving suburbanisation, as those who could afford to do so moved to more dist…

The NIMBYism isn't coming from nowhere, but that doesn't mean it's a good or valid thing.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#165

Post by ars »

This article keeps trying to make fun of the concept, claiming it's not real.

And yet, I know several people who have done exactly that (more quietly obviously). And several who tried and failed.

The difference? It's debt.

If you can avoid debt completely this really does work, but it takes a LOT of sacrifice on your part to get there.

It's basically a real life form of min-maxing in games. Minimize all pleasure and ease at the start of life, and never get into debt.

Then once you are past that part suddenly it's all easier.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#166

Post by knuththetruth »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #161
knuththetruth wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's not some kind of neutral, organic development. It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, to increase their own wealth and power. Shifting all the "liability" onto workers, creating an economy where everyone but the wealthiest are fungible serfs, is a specific set of values and decisions advanced by these people because it benefits them.

> It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, So legislation purportedly for employee protection backfires by making direct hires uneconomical and you call this " something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians"?

By an reasonable comparison to other wealthy economies in the developed world, no such labor protections exist in the US. What little protections are in place have been systematically under attack since at least the 1970s.

If we we're talking about somewhere like France, perhaps this argument would hold water. Otherwise, seems like a strawman.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#167

Post by s73v3r_ »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #161
knuththetruth wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's not some kind of neutral, organic development. It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, to increase their own wealth and power. Shifting all the "liability" onto workers, creating an economy where everyone but the wealthiest are fungible serfs, is a specific set of values and decisions advanced by these people because it benefits them.

> It's something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians, So legislation purportedly for employee protection backfires by making direct hires uneconomical and you call this " something the rich choose to do, in collusion with politicians"?

Yes, I do. Because it's something they do specifically to avoid responsibility. And the rich are adults, who are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#168

Post by sokoloff »

mcguire wrote: post #158
sokoloff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Inflation has been 3% a year for decades and wages have stayed flat. Every time I read this claim and go looking for data, I find data that says that real wages are roughly flat, which means that they have kept pace with inflation. (That's the definition of real wages: that they are in inflation-adjusted terms.) It seems a common journalistic (and often political) talking point to say exactly what you said, which ma…

Figure 3: " When it comes to the pace of annual [real wage] increases, the top 1% wage grew 138% since 1979, while [real] wages for the bottom 90% grew 15% " Figure 4: " Middle-class wages are stagnant—Middle-wage workers’ hourly [real] wage is up 6% since 1979, low-wage workers’ [real] wages are down 5%, while those with very high wages saw a 41% increase " I wouldn't exactly describe those figures as "misleading".…

IMO, the graphs show that the quoted statement is absolutely misleading: "Inflation has been 3% a year for decades and wages have stayed flat."

I agree that they would likely not refute a different, unmade, point about income inequality.

The second reference is saying that real new-car prices have declined by about 36%. ==> 1-(100/155.6)

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#169

Post by bhandziuk »

ahtu123 wrote: post #132
bhandziuk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 can probably be done. (assuming "average" is average for that city, not national average). NYC, DC, Seattle, SF, Boston, Chicago... Naming 10 is probably way harder.

Seattle can be tough at least. Really depends on a lot on where you live and where you work. Almost any commute can be done but it easily gets to 2h+ which is just ridiculous.

Seattle is the only one I have personal experience with and I've found it to be pretty good. Usually walking < 1 mile total is reasonable. If you live out in King county things are a little different of course. Are the other cities better than that?

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#170

Post by maccard »

legulere wrote: post #65
vorpalhex wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continuing to build a world where they are more and more necessary My grandmother can still, to this day, recount living in an apartment with no furniture except a mattress, with my grandfather who was employed as an engineer in New York. It took, by her estimate, about two years to have enough furniture before she was willing to invite over any sorts of company. Today you can furnish an apartment reasonably with a…

Mass produced goods including furniture is cheaper nowadays but everything else is more expensive. This includes essential things like housing and healthcare. Further the needs have also grown: without a car it’s impossible for most people to have a job

> Further the needs have also grown: without a car it’s impossible for most people to have a job

In parts of the US. For most parts of the Europe, and indeed many cities in the US, a car is not a requirement.

Post reply on HN