Just to be clear, this is a story of a person who has been traumatised by a combination of the worse parts of US and Chinese poverty. It's not a nice story, at all... Also, the two websites she runs, as linked at the bottom of the page - one of them is a blog/content site about living frugally, one is about making money any way you can. They're part of the same problem that the article (probably inadvertently?) illus…
Yes, this is being overlooked by most readers... this article is a woman plainly describing her mental illness.
I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
81–90 of 226 posts
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#82I think about this a lot, as another frugal but high-earning household that earns way more than we spend, even after maxing out 401(k) contributions. Most people in our position save more than they need partly as a means of hedging personal risk (higher-than-typical retirement and medical expenses, children who grow up unable to financially self-suffice), and partly (IMHO) just because they gain some satisfaction fro…
> Some people also save with the thought of giving away a ton of money at death, but this again holds money out of useful purposes until decades away. What makes you believe that? The overwhelming majority of savings are held in bonds, stocks and real estate, not in paper notes in a vault. You might quible over the usefulness of savings and investments vs other allocations, but assuming is useless is pretty extreme.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#83I think about this a lot, as another frugal but high-earning household that earns way more than we spend, even after maxing out 401(k) contributions. Most people in our position save more than they need partly as a means of hedging personal risk (higher-than-typical retirement and medical expenses, children who grow up unable to financially self-suffice), and partly (IMHO) just because they gain some satisfaction fro…
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#84I think about this a lot, as another frugal but high-earning household that earns way more than we spend, even after maxing out 401(k) contributions. Most people in our position save more than they need partly as a means of hedging personal risk (higher-than-typical retirement and medical expenses, children who grow up unable to financially self-suffice), and partly (IMHO) just because they gain some satisfaction fro…
> Some people also save with the thought of giving away a ton of money at death, but this again holds money out of useful purposes until decades away. What makes you believe that? The overwhelming majority of savings are held in bonds, stocks and real estate, not in paper notes in a vault. You might quible over the usefulness of savings and investments vs other allocations, but assuming is useless is pretty extreme.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#85I'm honestly so jealous of the husband's situation. 7-figure networth before hitting 30, a 4-bedroom home in a major tech hub, and a compulsively frugal wife who is obsessed with financial planning and amplifying your shared incomes/networths. The dream. This article just feels like a vector to drive traffic towards her sites, though.
It might be a dream if the feeling of security, of having assets, money in the bank, is the thing that's missing in your life. That'll be the case to the degree that you were insecure and poor as a child, I'd expect. I grew up poor, but not as poor as the lady in the article. And it was in Ireland, so there was a social security net, my college degree was paid for, etc. So I feel comfy enough once I have a year's tak…
This is a pretty restricted view of turn power of money. Charity and/or helping one's family is rewarding. Also rewarding, as the other commenter pointed out, is the freedom to not chopse between non-rewarding work and poverty.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#86If you look back at any wealthy family’s history they all have this story, especially in the USA. The story basically goes like this: “A long time ago our great great grandfather lived in a dirt floor home and the family worked really hard and was frugal and did without and eventually luck came their way and they made good investments, or happened to be in the right place at the right for a resource boom, and made a…
On one level all wealthy families have this history simple because not long ago everyone was dirt poor.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#87When I read stories like this, I always think of the systemic factors that are creating this behavior; that America, and indeed many countries in the world, do not have the social safety nets to take care of its own people when they can't work anymore. It would be better and more efficient for a nation as a whole to take care of its children so that they can choose their own avenues of success rather than needing to…
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many systems would be "better and more efficient for a nation as a whole" if everyone was 100% selfless and treated the welfare of others as exactly as important as their own welfare. Sadly, the way the universe works, any such system is open to free riders who take more than their share. Tragedy of the commons. The only solutions we've found so far are: 1. Assign people control of what they create, so they can benef…
1. You don't need to get "more health". You get treated and you feel better again. 2. All people should have the right of food. I don't care how much you make, who you are, or whatever. You live, and that's your right. We should be working on automated farms so we can grow this locally. 3. Same, for water. 4. If you don't have a place to sleep, we provide you one. May not be big, but a place to sleep and call home is…
Even this humble level of safety net that you propose is incredibly expensive. Who does the hard work of building the small apartments? Who comes out and works on the plumbing when it clogs? And who picks up the trash every week and takes it to the dump? Who runs the water plant, the electrical plant, and who runs the fiber out for even the free, slow tier of internet? Who makes the base model of phone or laptop that everyone would be entitled to? Who tends the robots at the automated farm? Who polices the buildings and neighborhoods full of all these otherwise-indisposed inhabitants? Who provides medical care?
Answer: The Government. The Government offers decent pay for all these dirty jobs, to keep these resources available even to those who pay nothing. Where does the Government get the money to pay all these people? Answer: Taxes. Taxes on whom? It can't be taxes on the general populace, because they don't have any money, which is why you propose these things be free. So it must be taxes on the upper tiers, people who are working more than the baseline. They could settle for the free stuff, but they choose to work to earn more and get more.
But my objections are twofold.
1. It just doesn't seem fair. All these people that are rich and supposedly could share their wealth with the rest of us, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who are billionaires, they didn't have to do the things that made them rich. They chose to work at the things that made them so. If instead they chose not to do those things, then they wouldn't be billionaires, and that would be two fewer people you could tax the dickens out of.
2. It just doesn't seem like it will all add up in the end, at least not forever. Even though there are lots of rich people, I don't think there are enough rich people to keep society going forever off their taxes. First of all you would have to tax them so hard that it would be demoralizing to them. And it would be demoralizing to others who also would consider doing something to become rich.
A dream I have that might work is that every able-bodied person is required to work, but the standard work week is halved. If I only had to work 20 hours a week at my day job, I would be ecstatic, and I think I would have enough time for my hobbies, art, open-source contributions, and other things that people are talking about benefit the rest of society, if only people were given a breath to work on them.
I still think 40 hours a week is pretty hard, especially when you consider that people who work only 40 hours a week don't work only 40 hours a week. Add in commutes, runs to the grocery store, chores, home repairs, and other the other work you must do, unpaid, it adds up easily to 50% more. And I have not even mentioned parenting.
If people could live comfortably working 10-20 hours at an official job (not counting the other work I mentioned), that would be paradise. I don't think I would even want to work 0 hours a week. I would start to go stir-crazy.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#89If you look back at any wealthy family’s history they all have this story, especially in the USA. The story basically goes like this: “A long time ago our great great grandfather lived in a dirt floor home and the family worked really hard and was frugal and did without and eventually luck came their way and they made good investments, or happened to be in the right place at the right for a resource boom, and made a…
Fairly soon everyone will have a smartphone and you can get service for one hour of work a month.
Re: I’m not saving ninety percent of my income for myself
#90What decade was this actually written in?