Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Living on $100k a Year

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 195 posts

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#81

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

abalashov wrote: post #74
emerged wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be corrected.

I don't know if it's the fault of society, but it's fairly natural. Humans get attached to familiar places in which they grew up, in which they have lived in a long time, etc. They plant social roots. I'm not saying that means people who can't afford to live in places like NYC or SF shouldn't move, just that there's a complex tension between economic theory and "messy" human reality. The ideal rationally self-interes…

> They have relatives, friends, aesthetic preferences, social obligations, religious beliefs, and other things that "do not compute" in mathematical models.

They compute fine -- most models are just "lying with math" by excluding the value of those things from their calculations.

It's not different than a friend who ignores those things when using words -- of course it doesn't make sense why you don't move if you don't account for the full value of where you are at present.

I think if we accounted for the destroyed social value that most of these economic models have inflicted, it would be the obvious massive negative that most people anecdotally tell. I think it's very telling how rarely you see these kinds of things modeled in economic theory despite how obviously part of the way humans value things they are.

Economics is merely institutionalized fixation on money, and produces precisely the psychopathic models you'd expect from that.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#82

Post by abalashov »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #79
abalashov wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to think I budget appropriately, though I'll admit I didn't always when I was younger; it's an acquired skill. But you try budgeting appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive custody battle. But in a way, you're making my point for me; because $100k in SE income is not the same as $100k in W-2 income, it requires special budgeting considerations, to the degree that I'd benefit from reading a who…

>But you try budgeting appropriately through a divorce and absurdly expensive custody battle I did. >But in a way, you're making my point for me; $100k in SE income is not the same as $100k in W-2 income. Actually, I'm making the exact opposite point. The budget is the exact same. The budget is what forces you to not over-spend when times are good, so that you have plenty of money around when times are lean.

Well, indeed; what that adds up to is that it's safer (if perhaps unwise, that's debatable) to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable one.

Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#83

Post by abalashov »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #81
abalashov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's the fault of society, but it's fairly natural. Humans get attached to familiar places in which they grew up, in which they have lived in a long time, etc. They plant social roots. I'm not saying that means people who can't afford to live in places like NYC or SF shouldn't move, just that there's a complex tension between economic theory and "messy" human reality. The ideal rationally self-interes…

> They have relatives, friends, aesthetic preferences, social obligations, religious beliefs, and other things that "do not compute" in mathematical models. They compute fine -- most models are just "lying with math" by excluding the value of those things from their calculations. It's not different than a friend who ignores those things when using words -- of course it doesn't make sense why you don't move if you don…

Well, fair enough. Either way, the effect is the same — those variables are excluded from discussions in an almost sociopathic way.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#84

Post by thesmallestcat »

pishpash wrote: post #76
emerged wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an irritatingly prevalent attitude that once you've moved to a high cost of living area (or were born there), you're forever entitled to stay there. That if you can't afford it, it's the fault of society and needs to be corrected.

Would you say the same for indigenous people around the world? That when they're "priced out" they should just get the hell out?

What does "indigenous" mean here? Are we talking about nations, as in the Navajo or First Nations? Because that's an entirely different discussion. For everybody else I'd say yes, with mobility comes displacement. The ethics of fluid global and national labor markets are also a separate discussion, and I'm assuming we're discussing the current state of affairs.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#85

Post by disallusioned42 »

mberning wrote: post #6

I really cannot sympathize. My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak. Yes we struggled at times. Public school. Knock off sneakers. Cheap cost cutter food and small simple meals. Crap car. Etc. When I started working in software I made way more money right out of school than my family ever made. And I developed a lot of bad spending habits as a result. After a few years I got my head on straight. Pa…

I completely agree with you. I used to be in a very similar situation. I made about the same amount of money (quite a few years ago when it would have been worth a good bit more than today). I had a very similar experience. I lived paycheck to paycheck with nothing extra in the bank. Any unforeseen expense generated significant stress. It was not a fun experience. I can totally sympathize and agree that it feels miserable. But I cannot agree with the implications this article is making.

I was able to turn my situation around, not by getting tax cuts or help from the government, but by changing my lifestyle and my idea of what I needed. That house that you think you can afford that sets you back 20% of your gross pay? You don't need it. Cut your residence costs to something reasonable like 10% of of gross pay and boom, you magically have a surplus of ~$800 / month. That $400 - $500 / month car payment? You don't need that either. Stash away four months of the savings we just got on our residence and buy a used clunker for $3200, drive that into the ground, and by the time that dies, you will have saved up enough money to buy a perfectly fine used car for cash.

I have an artist friend who lives in NYC on ~$30k / year. She even has a car, which is an expense that a lot of people in NYC do without. Even in this situation she has been able to consistently put money away into savings and investments because she manages her money well. It's not about how much you make. Your choices have far more to do with it than most people are willing to admit.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#86

Post by incadenza »

Y7ZCQtNo39 wrote: post #46
incadenza wrote: post #28

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but it would be nice to hear what is eating into their income so much. My thought pattern here is that if you can't manage on $100,000 a year then you'll have the same problem at $200,000 a year, so on and so forth.

I'm a bit sympathetic to the idea that the American dream, when compared to the average paycheck, just doesn't add up for most people. I don't empathize with the poor financial choices folks make to place their expectations above their reality.

I guess I feel the same.

I'm very sympathetic to people who, when making decent financial decisions, are unable to meet their basic needs. Poverty / under-earning like that just creates a constant stress that is completely debilitating and unproductive. It has a real psychic toll.

It's just difficult for me to imagine not being able to make $100,000 work, save for a bunch of kids. But after all, those are somewhat of a choice as well.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#87

Post by notyourday »

azinman2 wrote: post #57
notyourday wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A take-away I had from Trump's election was that there still is a lot of economic struggle in the interior of the US. Nobody seems to be interested in improving the situation, and very few of these communities have the means and/or the willingness to move towards greener pastures. Is there anything that can be done to improve the situation? I work in a typical liberal as hell company in a very expensive city. The l…

I live in SF, work in tech, and do not share this experience at all. Not sure what environment you’re in but that’s far from ubiquitous.

I'm going to make an educated guess that you are not even noticing it because it is that common.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#88

Post by Consultant32452 »

pjc50 wrote: post #66
Consultant32452 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is there anything that can be done to improve the situation? Yes, but it's all the things that "coastal elites" don't want to hear. The first two topics of conversation would likely be about trade and immigration policy. But it's hard to talk about either without being shouted down as xenophobic or racist. It's worth noting that Obama ran on a platform to renegotiate NAFTA during his first primary.

What evidence is there that protectionism and further raising of the immigration barrier would actually solve any of these problems?

Yes. The immigration barrier is simply supply and demand. Just as the H1Bs have been used to keep the wages of the American middle class down, so has the open floodgates of illegal immigration kept the wages of poor Americans down.

With regards to protectionism I don't know what more evidence you could need aside from the changes to the US economy brought on by NAFTA, which were all predicted. It's been fine for the economy as a whole, but we're not talking about things like the GDP. We're talking about the economic well-being of the people who used to manufacture things in the US. Watch carefully, because that is the sleight of hand that unrelentingly responds to any talk of protectionism. They talk about sound economic theory about how protectionism impacts things like GDP. Not the topic at hand.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#89

Post by azinman2 »

notyourday wrote: post #87
azinman2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in SF, work in tech, and do not share this experience at all. Not sure what environment you’re in but that’s far from ubiquitous.

I'm going to make an educated guess that you are not even noticing it because it is that common.

My office is extremely political in discussion topics. It would be noticed and not looked favorably upon.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#90

Post by mberning »

Spooky23 wrote: post #53
tedivm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food stamps and WIC are welfare. What exactly do you think welfare is?

Usually temporary assistance, which is when you get cash is considered welfare. Most people who understand this stuff don’t consider safety net programs like food stamps or WIC that way. The difference is that the Food stamps/WIC allow you to work, and most people on them do. “Welfare” requires you to not work in order to get a benefit. The most vociferous disgust regarding people on welfare usually comes from people…

Yes. This exactly. We never received currency which is what most poor people understand to be “welfare”. In fact there is a bit of a hierarchy to these things and in school it was definitely way worse to be on “welfare” than food stamps. God forbid the kids at school found out you were getting welfare. You would be hounded about it. Food stamps not so much. Kids are savage to each other.
Post reply on HN