31–40 of 48 posts
[flagged]
I don't think this kind of comment belongs on HN, but I do agree basically agree with it.
> It is hard to differentiate "a nice compassionate living situation" from "a mechanism for abusers to build tiny empires".
OP could have invested more energy in writing out their reasoning, I agree.
Cool general idea, some of the specifics around $$ numbers are a bit... off > Big investments generate quite a lot of money — you can draw off about 4% of an investment every year without depleting the principal, because you get back that much or more in interest. That is not at all what the 4% rule they linked is talking about. The 4% rule means, roughly, from the original source, "95% of the time you won't complete…
A safe withdrawal rate would be like annual rate of return - annual inflation - 1% safety buffer.
So 4% - 2% (target inflation rate) - 1% (buffer) = 1%.
If you don’t include the 1% buffer here you have no margin of safety for a market downturn.
> Even if you did nothing but stick the money in an S&P 500 index fund, the historical average is about 10% per year. * With dividends reinvested, before inflation Say S&P dividends are always 1.5% 10% total return - 1.5% dividends (ignoring the quarterly compounding aspect for simplity) = 8.5% in equity growth Say you wouldn't reinvest them because you want cash flow equivalent to 4% of your principal 4% drawdown ru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the 6 others also had high paying it jobs. Outsource all non essential tasks ala taskrabbit? Money sounds like the issue here.
I think money is largely the issue. I lived in several different 5-7 bedroom communal houses in SF with a bunch of founders/engineers and if everyone (or even half the people) have high paying jobs then it's a very different experience. The group can easily absorb months of another resident's rent if they have volatile income which greatly reduces the pressure on relationships. It only costs a few hundred bucks a wee…
But in my experience highly difficult people who complicate living situations tend to struggle to keep jobs for the same reasons that make them bad roommates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this kind of comment belongs on HN, but I do agree basically agree with it.
A similar sentiment with a different tone is in another comment: > It is hard to differentiate "a nice compassionate living situation" from "a mechanism for abusers to build tiny empires". OP could have invested more energy in writing out their reasoning, I agree.
You want rules, trust me you want rules. I have lived in something really close to this situation – seven furries, one four-bedroom house in Seattle’s suburbs, one person with a high-paying IT job – and it fell apart. And a big part of why this fell apart is because we never even talked about things like “maybe we should set up a chore rota”. This also sounds a lot like “fraternities” and “sororities”, which certainl…
What if the 6 others also had high paying it jobs. Outsource all non essential tasks ala taskrabbit? Money sounds like the issue here.
Related to the reason why I always avoid roommate ads if they advertise paying for housecleaning once a month, because I can only really imagine living with, um, adults.
(this gripe does not apply to people who are working around childcare)
I generally love this idea but, historically, the risk with people building private communities that they're in charge of is that they may or may not turn out to be abusive tyrants and you can't do much about it and probably the abusive tyranny will come out thirty years later with a lot of "I told you so"s. c.f. cults, "dude ranches", "wilderness therapy", foster homes, asylums, etc; the list goes on quite a ways. A…
I bet successful private communities, intentional communities, etc. basically speedrun the recreation of the broader civil society they exist within.
Cool general idea, some of the specifics around $$ numbers are a bit... off > Big investments generate quite a lot of money — you can draw off about 4% of an investment every year without depleting the principal, because you get back that much or more in interest. That is not at all what the 4% rule they linked is talking about. The 4% rule means, roughly, from the original source, "95% of the time you won't complete…
Given how many communes or nonprofits go bad, it's good to have some sort of accountability to outsiders in the form of 'needing money'. (The recurrent debates over the Wikimedia Foundation's ever expanding budget being a good case in point. Are you impressed by what they have done with the many millions of dollars they've gotten in the past half-decade or so? No? Then it doesn't seem likely they're going to impress you very much more if they become so wealthy that they can operate forever off interest and have to care even less what any donators think...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone I knew died in a car crash, but somehow we all keep driving cars. Just because your friend's one attempt failed terribly doesn't mean the whole idea is rotten. I'm aware of a number of successful communities/warehomes that are making it work.
You’re taking my one added data point and extrapolating. I did not say that communes can’t work.
Cool general idea, some of the specifics around $$ numbers are a bit... off > Big investments generate quite a lot of money — you can draw off about 4% of an investment every year without depleting the principal, because you get back that much or more in interest. That is not at all what the 4% rule they linked is talking about. The 4% rule means, roughly, from the original source, "95% of the time you won't complete…
I’m not sure they’re considering inflation as well. A safe withdrawal rate would be like annual rate of return - annual inflation - 1% safety buffer. So 4% - 2% (target inflation rate) - 1% (buffer) = 1%. If you don’t include the 1% buffer here you have no margin of safety for a market downturn.
For more information about safe withdrawal rates then you probably want see https://earlyretirementnow.com/safe-withdrawal-rate-series/