America’s Professional Elite: Wealthy, Successful and Miserable • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by lallysingh » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

QualityReboot wrote: post #64

I just don't understand this at all. If you can earn a million a year, do it for 3-5 years, never have to work again, and pursue your passions in life. I think the problem for most workers is the lifetime of toil, not the meaninglessness of the work. I'd happily dig ditches for 8-12 hours a day for 3 years if I knew I was completely financially independent with millions in the bank that. Actually, I'd rather do that…

Private schools and high-quality childcare. If you look in the parking lots of top-tier schools, you'll see as many old Hondas as Range Rovers. Many parents care more about getting their children the best possible education than their own financial freedom. If the job's tolerable, why not just do it to see the kids happy with a bright future?

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

#392

Post by alexhutcheson » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

ijpoijpoihpiuoh wrote: post #377

alexhutcheson wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, although many families aren't willing to deal with the pressure and risk of the NYC high school application process.

In a good neighborhood, your only risk is that you will go to a very good school instead of a great one. Look, it's not that I don't have any sympathy. My household makes about as much as this guy and live in a similar situation, although apparently I like my job much more. Doesn't mean my life is without problems. Doesn't mean I don't get sad sometimes. But there are ways to mitigate the downside we have access to w…

Yeah, I'm not claiming that the guy is right, and I'm certainly not aiming to debate or criticize your personal choices. I'm just aiming to describe this attitude that seems to be really common in the NYC area, and which explains why many parents feel their choices are constrained.

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

#393

Post by zaccus » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

CompelTechnic wrote: post #349

forrestthewoods wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have something left over each year to reinvest. Right. So my question is how much can you withdraw to indefinitely draw the same inflation adjusted value?

check firecalc.com for historical likelihood of portfolio success, given a starting nest egg and an annual withdrawal rate. The 4% withdrawal rate mentioned above is very likely to succeed for an indefinite period, and 3% is essentially impossible. This is all assuming 85% US equities and 15% bonds, and that the future looks vaguely like the past 150 years. Despite all the skepticism above, the 4% claims are true. No…

85% in equities during retirement is a bad idea.

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

#394

Post by throwaway-1283 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

abrahamepton wrote: post #385

throwaway-1283 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mention Seattle...I'm referring to NYC or SF.

So literally 2 cities. Wildly expensive cities like DC, Seattle, Boston are still highly livable on $1.5 million. Honestly, if you're regretting your life choices so severely but you're unwilling to live anywhere but NYC/SF, you're either not really regretting your life choices that much, or you're just really bad at making good decisions with your life.

I'm making the assumption that there are more jobs that pay $500k+ in Silicon Valley and NYC. If you can get that salary in 2nd cities like SEA or BOS then of course you're doing better than someone making the same in higher CoL places.

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

#395

Post by alexhutcheson » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #380

alexhutcheson wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. They can easily afford the $140k/year in education expenses if they keep working the 7 figure job they hate, but they couldn't really afford it if they took a huge pay cut.

Ah, I get your point now. But $140k/year in education for two kids is at basically the second highest tier of education in the world (only things being higher are elite international schools or comprehensive private tutoring). Where I'm from in the US you could get the best education in the state for probably $15-18k/year/kid

Yeah I think the insane costs are a disease that mainly afflicts the major coastal metro areas. Families end up paying in some combination of high mortgages, high property taxes, direct private school tuition, or insanely long commutes. There are different choices you can make along those dimensions, but total cost is high regardless.

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

#396

Post by 3pt14159 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

naravara wrote: post #352

3pt14159 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And if you get windfall and are really itching to spend it do yourself a favour and research what stuff is expensive but lasts. In NPV terms you'll be saving money, but you won't be pulling on hard-to-escape expenses. Source: I sold a company and quadrupled my spend on housing. Something stupid that I regret. But I also spent money on high quality stuff that is still lasting almost a decade later.

This isn't really germane to the $500k+ set the article is talking about. Everything you're buying at that tier is going to last. What eats up their incomes is housing, transportation, and stuff like private school tuition and childcare. The challenge there is it's hard to ramp those down once you lock in. Downsizing on housing means having to move and possibly sacrificing social life and opportunities along the way.…

> Everything you're buying at that tier is going to last.

I respectfully disagree. Luxury goods are often flimsy or expensive to maintain (e.g., Toyotas vs Porches) so research is still required.

As for private school and housing, these are exactly the expenses I'm talking about not getting wound up in. I went to private school almost my whole life, and I understand what it is to not want to be pulled away from a community, but the reality is that $500k—let alone $1m—is more than enough to afford a good private school and a good home in any city. The struggle to live on $500k / year is an artificial, self-sabotaging one.

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

#397

Post by justfor1comment » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

I think the struggle to find meaning in jobs is correlated with just how abstract the jobs have become nowadays. Most people don't directly interact with their customers or they don't see any tangible effect of their work. Their work is so specialized and niche that they cannot figure out why the economic machine needs them doing this.

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

#398

Post by TrackerFF » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

jdlyga wrote: post #336

The trick is to not fall into the trap of spending all the money you're making. Make a budget of how much you spend on rent, bills, and fun things, and don't bump it up each time you get a raise or a new job. Eventually, you'll find you're saving a lot of money. That gives you freedom and flexibility.

A big problem with lifestyle creep - IMO - is that the environment you're in, will/can influence you a great deal.

If you're a millionaire hanging around with avg. Joe's making $50k a year, then there's really no external forces to influence your habits. Your buddies aren't going to come around with their $300k sports cars, or invite you to their million dollar homes, and you won't be going to diners or clubs, spending thousands of dollars.

The more you see, and hang around those above things, the more normal they become. Peer pressure, even if not intentional, can be quite powerful.

If you're a $1.2MM fund manager / senior banker / law partner / management consultant / etc., then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you:

A) Live in a very expensive city (NYC as stated in the article)

B) Mostly hang around with peers of your own socio-economic class. (Co-workers / business partners, clients, friends - friends of friends, social activities / clubs, etc.)

C) Are regularly exposed to expensive lifestyle events (expensive client diners, first class business trips, expensive homes, etc.)

All that stuff becomes so normal - it's easy to get sucked in.

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

#399

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

lapnitnelav wrote: post #390

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dude religion isn't just dogma. Its also the collected wisdom of untold generations about how to live and not live your life. The stuff religion recommends, on average, works to make people's lives better for those who practice it. our society has completely thrown the baby out with the bathwater when we arbitrarily decided that all organized religions are bad and that God doesn't exist.

We've been killing gods since the dawn of times. The word religion itself originally was all about worshiping a god. Now everyone can define "God" how they want and follow whatever the scriptures advise, but let's not fool ourselves here, it's always been about power / control.

> The word religion itself originally was all about worshiping a god.

Not really, it was specifically about life under monastic vows (which, where it was coined, involved worship of the Christian God, but that wasn't the feature “religion” referred to, but instead the life bound by vows.)

In fact, the Catholic Church still used the adjective and noin “religious” in that sense, while it uses “religion” in the newer modern sense; a monk or nun is a “religious", a cleric in an order is a member of the “religious clergy” while those outside of an order are members of the “secular clergy”.

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

#400

Post by Raidion » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #233

MrMember wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought nowadays the recommendation was the 3% rule. Still absolutely doable.

The Trinity study said a conservative number was 4%. Since then a lot of people said "Well, I don't want a conservative number, I want a number that has no chance of failure", so went to 3.5% or 3%. Practically I don't think that's a wise choice, a vast majority of the time most of the time, any failures comes from sequence of returns risk and the remaining percent coming from simulated bad returns coupled with a very long life.

This means that as long as you're willing to cut back on expenses if the market dips soon after you retire, 4% is fine, and it's probably not worth the extra X years of your life to try to get that number lower.