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

I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

thecut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 226 posts

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#211

Post by StillBored »

atomical wrote: post #157
StillBored wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to describe that as mental illness, I might go the other way and say people so consumed by their social status that they throw away their perfectly functional year old iphone/cloths/cars/etc to buy the latest version are suffering far more harmful mental illness. And that might just be the surface, people who throw their lives away going into massive debt to buy the largest house and nicest car they can afford a…

> My husband and I never really discussed the fact that I’d be supporting my parents. It was just a given > He doesn’t mind the way I want to live — he just goes along with it. > I once had a conversation with my husband about how if I died, he’d have to keep taking care of my parents. It’s a dark topic, I know, and he wasn’t thrilled about the idea. But he wouldn’t kick them out. > My dad is now retired, and when my…

Its getting a bit off topic, but in the US at least its still fairly common for children to take care of their parents in their last years. Particularly if ones parents aren't well off enough to afford some kind of senior living arrangement. Despite what you might think of medicare "Medicare doesn't cover custodial care, if it's the only care you need. Most nursing home care is Custodial care" https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/nursing-home-care

Getting married basically means that if you haven't already discussed this there is a strong possibility that might end up living with your spouses parents during their last few years simply because its more convenient driving them to the doctor and generally taking care of them as they go downhill. About the only way you get out of this is if some other sibling is better off or has more free time, lives closer or any number of other situations.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#212

Post by rasz »

atomical wrote: post #161
neogodless wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think this is accurate. While she does provide them with support, the article states that they actually need very little. She's saving a lot more than what's needed to support them.

They need her to buy them a house. That's not needing a little.

Buy a house, or rent for 10-15 years of the rest of their lives?

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#213

Post by OCASM »

cercatrova wrote: post #208
OCASM wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely the freeloaders would just spend their time doing activism to get even more hand outs from the producers.

Given time, everyone would become producers in some form or fashion. There are studies regarding boredom and people would rather electrically shock themselves than sit still. If you had no job and money coming in, sure you would binge Netflix or do some other mindless activity, but how long can you keep that up? A week? A month? A year? Sooner or later you're going to get up and do something interesting. Humans have…

Some people are indeed doers. I don't think the majority are though. Look at people on welfare, that's not how they behave.

I think you're confusing what you would like to happen with what is likely to happen.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#214

Post by eptcyka »

em500 wrote: post #61
xenocyon wrote: post #37

I think about this a lot, as another frugal but high-earning household that earns way more than we spend, even after maxing out 401(k) contributions. Most people in our position save more than they need partly as a means of hedging personal risk (higher-than-typical retirement and medical expenses, children who grow up unable to financially self-suffice), and partly (IMHO) just because they gain some satisfaction fro…

> Some people also save with the thought of giving away a ton of money at death, but this again holds money out of useful purposes until decades away. What makes you believe that? The overwhelming majority of savings are held in bonds, stocks and real estate, not in paper notes in a vault. You might quible over the usefulness of savings and investments vs other allocations, but assuming is useless is pretty extreme.

In all honesty, putting money in real estate or stocks is just speculation which is fairly meaningless - the only benefit that brings is that it drives market forces to evaluate a certain good at a given price, and even still I don't believe it's all too useful today. Further still, putting money into real estate with a hope of ROI is, in my opinion as a home-owner-to-be, actively detrimental to society. Having seen the market prices in my current city rise more than 2x in less than 10 years without the wages seeing anything remotely close to the same adjustment. Just because somebody can make a profit doesn't mean that any intrinsic value has been made.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#215

Post by cheerlessbog »

im3w1l wrote: post #185
cheerlessbog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiding your money under the mattress increases the value of money being spent because it reduces the amount of money in circulation in the near term.

In a system where money is debt, money under the mattress means someone else is in debt. That is someone that has to be more risk averse. Normally this is balanced by someone who can take more risk because they have more money. If hoarding money under your mattress becomes a movement then it may be that it tilts society to unhealthily risk averse and no one is in a position to try ambitious investments. I haven't ful…

Money is not debt its paper or equivalent whose only purpose is exchanging for things. The government can and does print as much as it likes without creating any obligation on anyone else. They could print a billion dollars to put under your couch without any affect on the economy at all until you spend it.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#216

Post by tasuki »

Cyph0n wrote: post #122
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you assume spending more money will make you happier though

It is extreme frugality, not just frugality, when you choose to put your dining table in your bedroom. I would honestly never live like this, regardless of my financial goals. I hope the husband is actually enjoying it...

I disagree that a studio apartment is _extreme_ frugality. Not many years ago, it was standard for people to live on much less space per person than these days.

> I would honestly never live like this, regardless of my financial goals.

Yes you would. If your financial goal was to have enough money to put food on your table, you'd care less where that table was located.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#217

Post by rhacker »

username90 wrote: post #206
mwfunk wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that seems really materialistic and self-destructive to me as well, just from the opposite direction. Obsessing about everything that one could possibly spend money on (early retirement in this case, I believe), then spending one's entire young adulthood obsessing over how to accumulate and not spend money to get it? It's just consumerism and materialism in another form, obsessing over which things to save up…

I buy everything I want to buy and still save around 85% of what I earn. I don't obsess with discounts or so, I buy things when I want them. I can happily live like the poorest few percent while earning like the top few percent so it doesn't make me miserable. In my opinion spending money is usually more work than it is worth, even without considering the time it takes to earn said money. Like, you have to go to the…

Not to mention that even with your favorite restaurant and favorite meal at said restaurant do other people find that 20% of the time the chicken is cold or undercooked or the sauce was wrong or mis-applied. Opting in to spending money generally makes one double mad because of how little comes back.

Why pay $10 for a salad when $20 can pay for a week of salads customized exactly the way you want. (and organic)

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#218

Post by OsTaBLer »

Reedx wrote: post #102
maxaf wrote: post #56

I’m 100% the opposite way. My wife is very frugal, but I save nothing. What’s the point of pinching every single penny? That’s not life; it’s survival. Even more ironic is the fact that this is multiple decades of mere survival all aimed towards one goal: ensuring survival in those decades when work is no longer possible. Perhaps I’m obtuse, but this isn’t a life worth living. I want to enjoy my healthy years in the…

One of the problems with this strategy is that it ends up becoming a burden to your family and others (who sacrificed to save for a rainy day). And it may happen sooner than you think. > I’m keenly aware that I’ll be left penniless once I can no longer work, but I have a plan for that. What's the plan?

I too really want to know. I'm guessing living off the state? I know that's the case for most people I know, but pensions are all managed by the state where I live so you don't really a choice. You get a baseline poverty level income even if you never paid taxes.

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#219

Post by Cyph0n »

tasuki wrote: post #216
Cyph0n wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is extreme frugality, not just frugality, when you choose to put your dining table in your bedroom. I would honestly never live like this, regardless of my financial goals. I hope the husband is actually enjoying it...

I disagree that a studio apartment is _extreme_ frugality. Not many years ago, it was standard for people to live on much less space per person than these days. > I would honestly never live like this, regardless of my financial goals. Yes you would. If your financial goal was to have enough money to put food on your table, you'd care less where that table was located.

> I disagree that a studio apartment is _extreme_ frugality. Not many years ago, it was standard for people to live on much less space per person than these days.

And I also disagree; I have lived in a studio before.

But in this context -- owning a 4 bedroom house yet deciding to rent out the remaining rooms to live in one of the bedrooms -- it is indeed extreme frugality.

> Yes you would. If your financial goal was to have enough money to put food on your table, you'd care less where that table was located.

So you think that there are people out there who own a 4 bedroom house and have a 7 figure (?) household income and yet struggle to put food on the table??

Or do you just have trouble sticking to context?

Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself

#220

Post by OsTaBLer »

temp129038 wrote: post #180

I just went to a talk by a software engineer in SF who was talking about effective altruism and how he personally donates 33% of this income to charity every year... The one thing about personal finance blogs that consistently bother me is that they always feel incredibly selfish. How much do they donate to charity every year? Given the attitude of scrimping every penny I’m guessing very little to none.

Under capitalism, there are clearly no incentives to donate to anything. Maybe to tragedy of the commons kind of things like global warming, but even then you know that most of what you give ends up in NGO executives compensation and other employees payroll. Donating is only doable at Warren Buffet / Bill Gates levels of wealth.
Post reply on HN