Live data from Hacker News

How I got wealthy without working too hard

amaca.substack.com

261–270 of 349 posts

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would easily bring you 1M total investments. I think this is the disconnect with GP, $1M isn't what anyone can really call "wealthy" nowadays. Yes, it's a lot of money, but does not allow one to live what most people consider to be a rich lifestyle.

Sure, I agree with you that even in a low cost, rural part of Italy (or the US) nobody is living like a tv rich guy on 25k-35k (probably what it would be safe to count on if you're young when you stop working). You're not flying private jets (or first class), not consuming the most expensive things, and you don't have an army of personal servants. But... the real, foundational difference between being rich and not is…

Great post, but can I suggest a three-way distinction, instead of two-way:

1. People who need to engage in wage labor in order to survive.

2. People who can deploy resources essentially at will to meet essentially arbitrary goals. This means buying stuff, capital investment, etc. etc., with the limits significantly beyond what (say) a 10x median income person might be able to manage.

3. People for whom neither 1 nor 2 is true.

I don't think we have a great term to describe the third category. Simply by not needing to engage in wage labor, such people are in many ways "wealthy". But lots of the connotations of "wealthy" are related to the second category, and they don't have these abilities either.

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#262

> Take a $ 500-1000 / day, full-remote job > Take 2 months for holidays in-between contracts > Do this for 7 years while investing most of your salary in a diversified portfolio. Working $1000/day contracts for 5 days per week, 10 months per year is equivalent to $217K of contractor income per year. But contractor income is not comparable to normal career income because you have to handle additional taxes and health…

Yeah, I have some questions too. Even at a rate of 150k/yr, while today that seems within the reach of many north american senior level devs, 7 years ago that was tippity top percentile pay, so it's not exactly something that anyone could've done, literally by definition.

One other thing that isn't mentioned either is market ups and downs. If your nest egg started at the bottom of the subprime crisis, that's a very very different timing prospect than if you had significant equity that lost value in the late aughts.

And lastly, is 1M in liquid assets even considered "wealthy" these days? "Well-off", maybe, perhaps even "rich", but "wealthy" in my mind means "bentleys and yatches are pocket change".

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#263
post #119

> Take a $ 500-1000 / day, full-remote job > Take 2 months for holidays in-between contracts > Do this for 7 years while investing most of your salary in a diversified portfolio. Working $1000/day contracts for 5 days per week, 10 months per year is equivalent to $217K of contractor income per year. But contractor income is not comparable to normal career income because you have to handle additional taxes and health…

They live in the UK. Health insurance is literally a non factor in the developed world other than the US.

In Germany, the public option for health insurance runs you 14.6% of your income[0]. That is not a non factor.

[0]: https://welcome-center-germany.com/health-insurance-for-self...

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#264

Lots of posts saying $1M isn't much. What amount would you consider truly wealthy?

Truly wealthy would be >$100M in a major US city. I know plenty of people with $3-$6M and they live very normal lives, not ostentatious, just without much stress over money.

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#265
post #247
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$175 is definitely not the ceiling for the US. "HR says they never seen such high rates" is a negotiating tactic - you have to counter. Of course, you also have to be worth it by establishing a track record of being a subject matter expert, delivering the results, and being great to work with. Another way to get exceptionally high hourly rates is to do per-project or per-phase bidding, but that has its own pitfalls,…

per project, as in "fixed price"? you say you will do the job for 50K, then hope you can actually pull it off. seems very risky unless there is a provision in the contract to renegotiate without any consequences when it turns out it will take longer? I don't even understand why they involve HR since it's none of their business. After all, you are a professional service provider. How would you counter?

Yes, the risk is one of the main pitfalls I was alluding to, and the best way I know of it mitigate that are the 2 I mentioned - per-phase and having some hourly rate in there too. A renegotiate-with-zero-consequences provision is unrealistic - that's too lopsided in your favor - but some provision to reassess if things are just completely out of whack is reasonable. But yes, there is always risk in this model, so it pays to start conservative and to really get good at it. But to some degree you want that risk, as the risk and reward are related to each other of course - if it's uncomfortably risky, then maybe a more stable 9-5 salaried job is a better route.

As an example of what mixed billing might look like, you might scope out the work for a basic website and then your proposal would boil down to $20k for the initial phase of the site, and that includes 5 hr of customizations not covered in the requirements doc, and then $200/hr for additional customization beyond that, and then already have a rough breakdown of what will be included in phases 2 and 3. The 5 hours you've built in to the bid is your way of recognizing that no requirements doc is going to be 100% comprehensive (nor is your client going to know with 100% certainty up front exactly how they want everything). The hourly rate beyond that shows that you're willing to let some stuff be added, so they don't have to totally stress about getting the requirements doc 100% right. And then the rough sketches of future phases helps prevent you from getting stuck in just hourly mode for everything after the first phase - if they start asking for a really big chunk of work you can say, "yes, we can definitely do that, but that's a big enough chunk of work that it'll really delay the initial launch of the site - let's talk about putting that in phase 2".

One huge advantage of milestone- or phase-based billing (assuming you do it right) is that you are rewarded for efficiency and optimization - improving your skills, creating reusable libraries/templates, finding trusted people you can outsource un-fun work to, etc. - because you are billing on value provided, so over time you hopefully reduce your costs while the value you provide stays the same or increases. If you are always billing at an hourly rate, you have limited incentive to improve in those ways because you end up passing all of those gains on to your client.

> I don't even understand why they involve HR since it's none of their business. After all, you are a professional service provider. How would you counter?

Exactly right, and I think you counter by essentially saying that (in a nice way). But really you want to make the conversation about value you're providing and that if you really get down to the nitty gritty, it's a good deal for them. Don't forget that they aren't paying employment taxes for you, or paying you benefits like medical and paid vacation - those are big numbers. Also, part of the appeal of a contractor/consultant is that it doesn't have to be a long-term commitment, and they don't have to invest in finding or creating the skills you bring to the table. All of these really matter, so it's ok to make them part of the discussion. There are more subtle things too - in talking with them, you can usually get a sense for the level of dysfunction in their org and, if it's not so much that you want nothing to do with them, you can really play up things like your ability to deliver quickly.

There are some cases where you have to stand firm and be willing to walk away. If it's a client you really want to land long-term, then occasionally you might decide to do a smaller introductory project at a lower rate with them as a way to build the relationship and prove out your services, with a clear understanding that this is a good-faith concession you're making and not a permanent reduction of your rates. And then in that intro project you do your best to absolutely kill it and be a great person to work with such that when it is done, they are more convinced than ever that they want to keep working with you and that your services are worth it.

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#266
post #32

>Do this for 7 years while investing most of your salary in a diversified portfolio. Don’t go too crazy with Crypto. Easy to do in a massive bull market.

Isn’t it better to invest when its a bear market? Everything’s basically on sale. Why would you want to buy stuff at a premium? At least that’s how I see.

> Isn’t it better to invest when its a bear market?

Everyone says that when they are in a bull market

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think poster is saying $40k a year is fine in LCOL but not wealthy. And it's the yield of $1 mil.

$40k a year during retirement . That was the original argument. With mortgage paid off and grown kids and social security supplement, $40k is plenty of money.

Adding in social security is really moving the goalposts. The discussed scenario is about working for less than ten years, which means much younger than 65-72.

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#268
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could get up to 10% on 1M investment annually (that is what my friend has). Sure he does not have private yacht but one can live quite comfy on 100K without lifting a finger and that is what he does.

If your friend can reliably generate 10% (not just in the current insane bull market) he should open a hedge fund.

I think that if you tracked S&P 500 since inception years you made about 10-11% year on average.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average...

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can bill several times that amount both in the US and Europe. Companies think nothing of it if you have the right skill sets.

What are some examples of the right skill sets? I think I could get pretty good at anything I put my mind to, but I don't have knowledge of what kinds of things businesses consider important enough to spend that kind of money on to know what I should study.

Couple of areas to consider:

- emerging tech - it was lucrative being a mobile app developer when iOS first released its native app SDKs because everybody wanted an app but companies generally didn't have the skills for it internally yet.

- niche/specialized tech - deep knowledge and expertise with things companies often stumble on. For a long term, being an RDBMS expert a "DBA" gave you the ability to print money.

- dregs tech - it's no longer the new shiny thing, but there's still a lot of demand to keep systems running. So a COBOL master or an enterprise Java guy (especially someone with the ability to come in and fix large systems without taking them offline).

So today, skills sets could be embedded/IoT, crypto/blockchain, AI/machine learning, etc. You can bet on something that is becoming popular but still emerging, and then move on once it becomes ubiquitous, or you can establish yourself early and stay with it long term and just be really good at it.

At the end of the day, though, you're looking to add a lot of value and to be easier than a company just doing the same internally. So it can be pretty much anything if you have a good value proposition.

Re: How I got wealthy without working too hard

#270
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL;DR: $40k/year in exchange for working full time = not wealthy. $40k/year without having to work = wealthy. I consider $40k/year pretty good, and definitely enough for me to live comfortably on here in Austin TX (Source: I've lived here for 13 years now, and I'm only just now getting close to spending+taxes [retirement+charity excluded] exceeding $40k as I've started spending more liberally.) I've got friends here…

I agree with everything you wrote here except this: > However, having enough money in savings that you get $40k/year without having to work is something else entirely. A 65-year-old with that nest egg is borderline-wealthy. A 40-year-old with that level of savings is solidly wealthy. Why the difference? The 65 year old is going to be able to actually draw down some of the nest egg much sooner than the 40 year old. Th…

Yeah, I don't have a great answer to that question, but it certainly feels like there's a tangible wealth difference between "I can retire at standard retirement age" vs. "I can retire 15 years early".

It's the same a 20-year-old owning a house vs. a 40-year-old owning a house. Same assets, but the former stands out as exceptionally well-off.

Post reply on HN