Live data from Hacker News

America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

nytimes.com

261–270 of 475 posts

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. We recently purchased a car. In our case the "expensive" aspect is that we bought new... a new Subaru Outback. We could certainly afford a brand new Escalade, but those types of behaviors would lock me into my current employer or something that pays similarly and that idea isn't something I'm fond of. And this dude bought that shit despite hating his professional life. Hard to feel bad for him.

I've been in a similar position as you for most of my life. One weird aspect: employers/managers/companies have come to rely on you "needing" the pay cheque as a powerful motivator and control. When you can literally walk away from a job because you don't need the money to make your end of month payments it makes the relationship weird in some aspects. I don't even know if the party who traditionally holds this power…

I’ve heard it given the name “Fuck you money” – the money you have that gives you the ability to just say “Fuck you!” and walk away from your employment.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#262
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 years at a million a year, after taxes in a High COL state will be about 2.5M. A healthy sum indeed, but not enough to retire on, especially with a family.

A single person could absolutely retire on 2.5M. That's $100k a year using the 4% rule.

Is that number for 30 years? If you’re retiring early you need your nest egg to last for 40 or 50 years.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#263
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 years at a million a year, after taxes in a High COL state will be about 2.5M. A healthy sum indeed, but not enough to retire on, especially with a family.

A single person could absolutely retire on 2.5M. That's $100k a year using the 4% rule.

Especially if you move to a lower cost of living place. That is, if that suits you. Some people absolutely love all that the big, expensive cities have to offer and it suits their lifestyle. A lifestyle you won't find in an affordable place.

But yes, saving a couple million and moving somewhere in expensive, buying a house cash and living off of interest is totally doable if you're into that kind of thing.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#264
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To consume $100k a month we need a $10-20 million dollar mortgage (50-100k/mo depending on years and rate). I have to assume a few cars, dining, etc would probably end up being $10-20k/mo so the mortgage is probably around $15 mil. So in NY or SF you are looking at something like a 1-2k sq/ft 2 bed 1 bathroom shithole apartment. Not so luxurious after all really.

Putting kids through school, paying for parent's mortgage, vacation properties, country club dues.

> country club dues

> vacation properties

I'm glad there's a "stupid tax" for wealthy people too.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#265

- He had received an offer at a start-up, and he would have loved to take it, but it paid half as much, and he felt locked into a lifestyle that made this pay cut impossible. “My wife laughed when I told her about it,” he said. Sounds like a good wife to me, and this "pay cut" is making 500k-600k instead of 1.2 million, what world are these people living in that you can't give up a job that you hate because you can't…

So this dovetails with what I think is the most fascinating topic in evolution: the demographic transition in humans. If you're not familiar, demographic transition is the term used to describe what has happened to the demography of nations as they become developed. Which is that, rather than producing more children with their material abundance, people in rich nations have less children. This is not, at all, what bi…

It's also worth examining if our typical ways of measuring inflation (in the USA, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) is an accurate guide to the real costs of raising children. The CPI currently takes into account a very diverse range of goods, including canoes and guns and lamps and kitchen wares and music and coffee grinders. The CPI tries to avoid the assumption that some purchases are more important than others, but if you are raising children, you know some things are much more important than others. You can cut back on coffee grinders, but you can not cut back much housing -- you need a certain minimum for each child.

My great grandmother gave birth to 16 children (this is my mom's mom's mom) who lived to adulthood. She (with my great grandfather) had no trouble housing them, feeding them, clothing them and ensuring they got educations to at least 8th grade, most to 12th grade. Does the CPI accurately reflect the changing costs of each of the things that were then easy to afford? How much would it cost to raise 16 children now? In theory, we are much more wealthy now than my great-grandparents were in the period 1880 to 1910, and yet they were able to afford something that nowadays would take a great deal to afford. Why is that?

Another thing that the CPI does not capture is how some new expenses have arisen that have become essential. In particular, automobiles. In much of the USA, having an automobile is non-optional.

We should think about those changes in lifestyle that make comparisons difficult across time. My great-grandparents raised 16 children in a dense town where transportation was dominated by walking. If you were trying to recreate that lifestyle in a USA suburb, some odd questions come up. Can you fit 16 children in one car? Do you get multiple cars? Who drives them? These questions point out how difficult it is to make direct comparisons.

Nor is it correct to simply say "No one needs to live in the suburbs in the USA, they can, if they wish, continue to live in a dense urban center". But the USA economy is a cohesive whole, and the existence of the suburbs effects the price of things in the urban core, as well as the focus of transportation infrastructure. Over the last 100 years, most USA urban centers have built significant transportation infrastructure to help workers in distant suburbs come into jobs in the urban core, and then go home at night. The money spent on those infrastructure projects could have been spent on some other priority, but instead were spent as they were because of the existence of the suburbs.

So it is very difficult to make direct comparisons, because some lifestyle changes make direct comparisons blurry. But in that blurriness, we can argue that in important ways our standard of living has not increased as much as the CPI seems to suggest. In particular, for those people who have a strong craving to have a large family, one can reasonably argue that their standard of living has actually decreased over time.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#266

>> If you spend 12 hours a day doing work you hate, at some point it doesn’t matter what your paycheck says Bullshit. If someone earns $1.2 million per year, they can retire after 2 or 3 years. They have no right to complain. They're weak. $1.2 million is the definition of eternal happiness. If you earn that, whatever emotion you feel in your life is called happiness. This emotion which their greedy brains interpret…

can you clarify if this is sarcastic? i actually can’t tell if you’re 1. sarcastic 2. trolling 3. honestly believe this 4. engaging in self deception to rationalize your own behavior

I know this is true because I once worked at a contractor for a really boring (and highly regulated) gambling/lottery corporation earning twice as much as I do now and I was almost twice as happy as I am now (all else being roughly the same). The feeling of security that you get from even that kind of money is amazing so 6 times that amount must be euphoric.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#267

I don't have much sympathy for someone who earns 1.2 million a year. No matter how bad it is, all you have to do is get your spending down to an absolute minimum and save up for 2 years, then you'll have over 1 million in the bank. Then move out to a nice midwestern town and live happily ever after. I know it's really rough leaving all your friends and family and everything you know, but it's not as rough as being po…

> Then move out to a nice midwestern town and live happily ever after.

That would be hell to most living in the 1%

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming not working/retirement = happiness, which is wrong.

It is pure happiness. I'm a curious person and I have a pretty intellectually stimulating job right now (so I understand the appeal) but heck; for $1.2 million per year, I would sit and stare at a blank wall every day for 5 years straight. I can even picture myself after finishing a hard day of hardcore wall-staring, I'd go home with a huge smile on my face. It would be like reliving the best day of my life over and…

You kindnof have a point but the problem is wife and kids. You would have to stare all together.

Re: America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable

#269
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what world are these people living in that you can't give up a job that you hate because you can't afford to live on 500-600k. New York City

Plenty of people living in NYC are doing totally fine on a tiny fraction of that.

That depends on your definition of "totally fine" is and where in NYC someone doing "totally fine" lives.
Post reply on HN