Interview with Mr. Money Mustache • Hacker News Board

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#291

Post by kdamken » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 1:34 PM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #34

joeax wrote: post #19

I've been reading his blog for a few years, and he does some have some insightful advice on shedding unnecessary expenses and living on a frugal spending diet. I've been able to get down to one car that is almost paid off, and double my savings and investment portfolio. My favorite article from him is living close enough to work to bike (although working from home is most ideal). However, his blog comes with a bit of…

That's what almost every one of these success stories, blogs, etc. are. They're very heavily weighted toward survivor bias and elide much context around being born into relatively privileged circumstances.

Fuck that noise.

A lot of people are born into "privileged" circumstances in america. That is one factor. Not the only one.

To quote MMM:

"Sure, privilege does exist, and it might make it easier or harder to inherit a company or win a senate seat. But it can’t control your choice to ride a bike, buy less shit, or read library books in your spare time and I argue that frugality is the most powerful factor in earning your independence. After all, most of my equally-privileged engineering coworkers are still stuck in the office to this day." - http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/01/impossible-dream/

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#292

Post by astura » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 1:51 PM UTC

kdamken wrote: post #290

astura wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked my ass off to get where I am financially. I grew up with low income, abusive, mentally ill, and alcoholic parents. I wasn't taught hardly any life skills and I had no "connections" of which to speak. I worked hard to get where I am now (I save/invest 70% of my income a year) but I don't for a second discount luck as a big part of it. Someone making similar choices as I did can surely have a different outcome…

Who you marry is hands down one of the largest factors in your overall financial success. Especially when it comes to the risk of divorce.

Absolutely. Even if we got divorced tomorrow I would be in a much, much better financial situation than if I'd stayed single. My spouse knows that from the other side of things too (was previously married to a lazy mooch for six years)

Part of that goes into the "luck" category as well.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#293

Post by ggggtez » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:28 AM UTC

dceddia wrote: post #190

ggggtez wrote: post #146

Rich guy tells poor guys, "to get rich, trick poor guys to listen to you". He's not wrong but you're all fools for caring about what he has to say.

His message is basically summarized as "Spend less than you earn, and invest it in index funds." He's not wrong, but I submit that the people implementing that advice aren't fools, either.

I'm referring to his comment about starting a cult. He is right of course that finding gullible people to follow you is easy. Just say some obvious things like "don't spend all your money, save and invest!" and the sheep will flock. Maybe you gave him no money, but you spent your time and attention.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#294

Post by vasilipupkin » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:31 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #259

vasilipupkin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they have enough money that they don't actually need to work and yet do work that generates income why don't they take that income and fully donate it to charity? if MMM doesn't do that, it means he needs that income - not different from just having a job

That's a ridiculous standard. How much money do you make? Do you live on the bare minimum necessary for survival and donate the rest? If you do, then kudos. If you're like most other people, you probably indulge in a luxury once in a while that you wouldn't otherwise buy if you couldn't afford it. That's not unreasonable. If your income unexpectedly declined, I'm sure there's a number of expenses that aren't strictly…

that's not really the point. I have expenses that aren't strictly necessary that I could give up - but those are things I like. So, the question is, why should you claim to be retired and then work part time to afford extra things you like, vs just have a job and afford those things.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#295

Post by elif » Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:51 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #44

joeax wrote: post #19

I've been reading his blog for a few years, and he does some have some insightful advice on shedding unnecessary expenses and living on a frugal spending diet. I've been able to get down to one car that is almost paid off, and double my savings and investment portfolio. My favorite article from him is living close enough to work to bike (although working from home is most ideal). However, his blog comes with a bit of…

MMM is too smug and pushy for a good portion of the general public. His writing can awfully hostile, it could be toned down a bit and his message would get further - some of his advice is very sensible. The problem with frugal blogs (in general) is they do one or more of the following; push penny pinching 24/7, "if you aren't eating lentils everyday and living in a cardboard box you're fucking up," they are too conde…

It's hard to effectively criticize consumer culture without sounding hostile to consumers. It would be worse for his persuasiveness to err on the side of appeasing the dominant cultural sentiment.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#296

Post by zfdrdg » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 2:47 PM UTC

lsmarigo wrote: post #157

CodeCube wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I find rent-seeking landlords to be an unethical pursuit. I know that's not a mainstream thought, and is the underpinning of many people's income strategy ... but I can't support the idea of letting a family live in a property for decades, and then something happening, and they're on the street with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have given in rent.

I'm with you and need someone smarter to make a better argument against renting than I can formulate on my own. All What I was taught: Renting is often times optimal, totally fine, the right choice for a lot of people! What my experience has taught me: Renting is for suckers or the incredibly wealthy that want to be able to move to a new city on a whim. I was a sucker for many years, and paid a very rich man 100k+ fo…

The point is, you've got to think it through and see if it's a good deal for you or not. Right now I own a house worth about 400k. If I rented and put that 400k in stocks history says I'd probably make on average almost 20k per year above inflation. Plus the landlord would pay the 4k property taxes and the new roof ill be doing next year. In my area I could easily rent a similar house for 20k per year. So in my case with the market the way it is right now I might be better off renting.

Re: Interview with Mr. Money Mustache

#297

Post by clarky07 » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

CodeCube wrote: post #283

koonsolo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you have some properties where families can live for free, or at least only have to pay half of the rent? Or you give away interest free montages so they can buy their own place? If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?

People price gouging during disasters is "offering a good or service for money", and it is unethical (and illegal). I propose that long-term gains from a single tenant, without an exchange of value (equity) is unethical. If you own a house, and one person/family has been living there for decades and then have to leave for some reason, they should not be leaving with a zero balance ... they've paid tens of thousands o…

What you propose is not in fact unethical in any way. They offered a good or service for money without gouging and not during a disaster. you aren't getting nothing out of the deal, you got a place to live for decades out of the deal. That was in fact the deal you signed up for, and what was delivered. They offered you a house for X dollars a month, you paid X dollars a month and got to live in said house for the month. When the month is over, you either pay them again or go find a new house to live in. pretty simple really.