9 ms·

> in the $10-30 million range you can live a comfortable life without having to worry about finances again This statement strikes me as very disconnected from

by 10122018 8y ago

> in the $10-30 million range you can live a comfortable life without having to worry about finances again This statement strikes me as very disconnected from the reality that the vast majority of people on this planet live in, and honestly, a little bit irritating. I'm well aware that many here on HN would be millionaires, but as somebody who grew up in poverty and is now a full-time uni student with no savings in the bank, and no safety net, I wouldn't describe my life as comfortable, but I'm not starving or sleeping on a park bench either. My largest expenses are rent, food and medical expenses. If somebody were to give me a hundred thousand dollars to invest, I am quite certain I could live comfortably for the rest of my life. I'd never own a Ferrari, but why would I need to? In other words, I think your comment reflects the very problem that the posted article is discussing. To me, the idea of needing $10 million to be comfortable and not have to worry about finances seems absurd. Unless your idea of a comfortable life involves owning a luxury car, or renting a $2,000 a night suite. I live on what many here would consider to be an extremely low income, and the only thing I feel I'm really missing out on is desperately needed dental work, and even that would be measured in thousands of dollars, not millions. I apologise if my comment sounds harsh or impolite. It is not intended to be. I'm just amazed that anybody would think they need $10 million to be comfortable.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
> I'd never own a Ferrari, but why would I need to? Because you were raised poor, you still are poor, so your views on life do not revolve around one of the finest and most exclusive automobiles money can buy. You've never been in a position to be even remotely close to owning a Ferrari, so your brain has ignored the value they offer. Yes. Driving a high speed status symbol can be rewarding. It can start conversations. It can get you access to groups of people who would never have looked at you before. Is it easy to write them all off on the premise of "if they wouldn't talk to me when I had a Honda, then they are vain and I don't want to talk to them?" Sure. But you'd be missing out on potentially meaningful connections. On top of that, hearing a visceral exhaust note while rapidly accelerating is adrenaline inducing. Does it get boring after 10,000 hours? Probably. But, what doesn't in life? The same way a trust fund child never views owning a dump or being in debt. It just isn't in your payscale/range, so why waste the brain cycles?
- tluyben2 8y ago
  > But, what doesn't in life? Studying. I learn (not skim or read but study like I did in uni) new things all the time for the past 30 years and it does not get boring while it costs very little to do so (I do not need diplomas or certificates but I am hard on myself and I do do exams if I can find them like it is real).
- throwaway1932 8y ago
  > Driving a high speed status symbol [...] can get you access to groups of people who would never have looked at you before I grew up in a very wealthy area and learnt to stay away from that kind of people.
  - lihaciudaniel 8y ago
    Elon Musk did it once , I guess for the lols.
rgbrenner 8y ago
100k * 10% = 10k/year. 10% is about the best return you can count on (very optimistically) I don't know what country you live in, but 10k in the US, even for a single person, would put you far below the poverty line. No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that. And let's not even talk about all of the other huge expenses that will come up later in your life. $10m * 3% = $300k/year That's a high end salary in the US. You could cut this number in half, and that would be ok too IMO. Less than some developers make. But you can buy a reasonable house, car, etc. Not a farrari though, unless you're irresponsible. If you actually intend to live on this money forever, then the return you receive is really the maximum you can spend. And that's really not as much as you would think. Especially when you figure there will be some years where you won't earn anything (during recessions). Again, if you live in an expensive country like the US. If you live in a poor country, maybe 10K is enough. But this article and these numbers, aren't really about that situation.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  Again, being able to live a life of leisure exclusively out of your fortune's interests reaches far higher than "living a comfortable line". You can live very comfortably with a part-time job, or even a full-time job that's not too demanding.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    The question says "without thinking about finances again". It is true the number could be lower, but there does need to be some buffer here. Otherwise you're one mistake/accident/recession/layoff away from "thinking about finances again".
- 10122018 8y ago
  I feel disheartened that you read my entire comment and chose to focus on one number and the ineptitude of my hypothetical investment strategy instead of focusing on the overall point I was trying (and I guess failing) to make. I regret saying anything at all. For the record, thousands of Australian university students live on less than US$10K per year. You seem to think we can't exist, but we do. > No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that. And thanks, that is very helpful of you to remind me.
Merad 8y ago
> If somebody were to give me a hundred thousand dollars to invest, I am quite certain I could live comfortably for the rest of my life. I'm really curious how you forsee this working out. Even if you can live comfortably on the federal minimum wage (about $15k/year) you're going to have to be able to consistently bring in something like 25% returns on your investments to stay afloat.
nostrademons 8y ago
Which metro area, and do you intend to have a family? The rule of thumb is that you can you can withdraw about 4% of your savings per year if you want them to last forever. $100k in savings gives an annual income of about $4000/year. There are places on earth where you can live on much less than that - my wife spent less than that for 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer in rural Peru. There are very few in the U.S. Even in small towns, rent on a 1BR will run $400/month. That's already over budget. Here in the Bay Area, minimum rent is about $1000/month with roommates. Anything less and you're living in an RV. If you're really frugal you can live as a single person on about $20K/year. Kids add a whole new wrinkle. An uncomplicated hospital birth is $20K if insurance doesn't cover it. A NICU stay is about $10K/day. Just the equipment to bring a kid home safely from the hospital and keep them safe (car seat, crib, high chair, diapers, babyproofing) can run a grand or two. Living in a 1BR is not really practical with a family (yeah, that's how my mom grew up, but her one non-negotiable as an adult was a house with a yard). Day care in the Bay Area is about $20K/year for a decent program. I'm generally someone who thinks people overestimate what they need to spend to be comfortable by a lot - I saved 80% of my income, consistently, for a decade. Still, expenses go up a lot when you have kids, and oftentimes they go up a lot even without having kids, simply because inflation. I'm really glad that my top-line was quite high for the first decade of my career, because I have a number of friends from college who thought "Oh, I don't need a lot of money to be happy" and therefore took career paths that didn't generate a lot of money, then got to 35 and found out that their career path does not support having a family.
jpatokal 8y ago
You may be misinterpreting the sums a bit here. $10m being "comfortable" simply means you can invest that conservatively, earn (say) 3% interest, and spend $300k/year without drawing down your nest egg. And while $300k is obviously wealthy, it's nowhere near private jet territory.
debatem1 8y ago
I would be very surprised if you could live worry-free with the investment proceeds of $100,000. You would have to earn 18% a year on that on average just to hit the poverty line in the US, and a more likely result would be living on 1/3rd of that. At just 6k/yr you would have food covered if you ate practically, or perhaps rent covered if you lived very modestly, but not both. Assuming that you meant something closer to $1M than $100k I would start to agree. At that rate an initial investment into a home becomes realistic and more advantageous investment options open up. You are still not living high on the hog (60k/yr, ish), but you will probably only have significant problems if you are struck by disaster, illness takes you, or you have children. At a further 10x that (roughly what the OP describes) you must really screw up to ever be one of the poor again. Many inefficient ways of living (eating out regularly, nice homes, expensive hobbies) open up. These are what most people consider comforts, and so I generally agree with the sense that this is the band where permanent comfortable living becomes possible.
- 10122018 8y ago
  > I would be very surprised if you could live worry-free with the investment proceeds of $100,000. I think you have made the assumption that I would stop working. That might be the goal of many people, but it's not mine, and it's not how I would define being comfortable. Aside from that, yes, I was using a fairly arbitrary number to make a point. I hadn't done the math. Which, here on HN, was probably a mistake. But for somebody who has never had more than $3K to their name, $100K in the bank still seems like a very comfortable safety net.
  - mruts 8y ago
    Have you considered that you think 100k is comfortable because you don’t have it?
  - keithwhor 8y ago
    $100k wouldn’t be a reliable safety net for long. A good network of people who trust you to execute reliably is worth way more than $100k — see: business owners who have repeatedly survived bankruptcy. I understand how ridiculous this may sound. There’s a presupposition of access to capital / employment. A large chunk of the world doesn’t have access to that, to no fault of their own. But don’t discount yourself that quickly — a non-trivial amount of people have created and captured an insane amount of value. It doesn’t seem entirely fair, and to be honest, sometimes it isn’t. Re: $100k, completely sane and reasonable expenses add up quickly. You’ll be surprised what costs rear their heads as you have more liquidity. You’re better off being broke while you’re in University and, once you’ve finished, learning the ropes and demanding compensation for your productive hours. You can calibrate your income against researched market rates / cohorts of friends if you’d like to optimize, and nobody will fault you for it — in fact, it’s expected. You’ll figure this all out but for now it doesn’t matter: everybody here is giving you sound advice (based on pre-assumption of: University-educated individual), you just can’t see past the iron wall of academia yet. It’s a much bigger world than you can imagine, with a lot of opportunity to generate wealth if that’s what you’re interested in. (It doesn’t have to be, but some sort of optimization in this direction is helpful for general contentment given your pre-supposed opportunities: not everybody gets to attend college.)
JamesBarney 8y ago
> If somebody were to give me a hundred thousand dollars to invest, I am quite certain I could live comfortably for the rest of my life This shows a pretty big disconnect. And is something no one in their 30s+ would say. The common rule of thumb is you can live off of an investment at 4% indefinitely(assuming 6% return and 2% inflation). This gives you $4,000 a year. Crappy insurance: $4,200 a year. Crappy 300 sq ft efficiency in cheaper town: $5,400 a year. Cost of owning a car: $5,000 a year(you could skip this expense, but you'll be spending most of it in increased cost of living in area with great public transit. You could also bike but not everyone's knees last forever) And this doesn't include food/entertainment/travel/internet/phone/medical bills etc.
- Applejinx 8y ago
  This seems like a hidden assumption. Why would you not work doing whatever it is you do as an avocation, or if you like, a hobby or dream job? If it's what you love and what fascinates you, why would that not lead to income across your whole life? Granted, it'd take years to get to the point where it's sustainable, but surely there is tangible value in this? I do not understand a mindset of 'My only purpose is to amass a pile of wealth so large that I don't spend any of it or do anything else ever, merely use the mechanisms of finance to subsist unproductively off the leakage from my giant pile of wealth, literally forever'. How is this plan in any way good, ethical or beneficial to either the person or the society they're in? You're going to die having made no use of the hoard you seized, despite having taken it from others who need wealth of their own to survive. Rethink these assumptions.
  - keiferski 8y ago
    There's no need for a dichotomy between "meaningful poorly-paid work" and "unethical pointless well-paid work." It's perfectly possible to work at a nonprofit that is "beneficial to society" while simultaneously optimizing your own personal financial position.
  - edanm 8y ago
    > I do not understand a mindset of 'My only purpose is to amass a pile of wealth so large that I don't spend any of it or do anything else ever, merely use the mechanisms of finance to subsist unproductively off the leakage from my giant pile of wealth, literally forever'. > You're going to die having made no use of the hoard you seized, despite having taken it from others who need wealth of their own to survive. Rethink these assumptions. I would encourage you to rethink your assumptions. What you wrote goes completely against how economics actually works. You are not "seizing" a hoard, and definitely not taking it from others. Unless you are literally a thief, that's just not how things work - you are making it seem like the economy is zero-sum, whereas it absolutely is not. Also, having a pile of wealth that you don't spend is something that no one actually does - almost everyone invests their money, which means it is put to good use, as an investment - the wealth that someone created out of thin air, is turned into the building blocks for new people to create their own wealth. I highly recommend you read a little about economics, it's one of the most rewarding and eye-opening things I've ever studied (only as an amateur, I'm not a professional economist or anything.)
hueving 8y ago
I don't think you are fully grokking "not worrying about finances". Your scenario requires consistent outsized market returns to give you less money than the poverty level. You will be wiped out by inflation, a recession, a newborn child, or a myriad of other unexpected expenses that will quickly blow through your poverty-level allowance. That's nowhere near "not worrying about finances". "Not worrying about finances" means you never have to work a job for income, you don't depend on the social safety nets of a single country, you never have to worry about affording a place to live, getting optional healthcare and so-on. You're thinking that people who don't constantly have to worry about finances is what the poster is talking about, but that's worlds away from never worrying about finances again. >I'm just amazed that anybody would think they need $10 million to be comfortable. Seriously, read the thread again. This has nothing to do with comfort, it's about FU money.
- 10122018 8y ago
  > Seriously, read the thread again. This has nothing to do with comfort, it's about FU money. I was responding to the HN comment, not the Reddit thread. If you're talking about having "FU money" and I'm talking about being "comfortable" then I think we are talking about different things. > You're thinking that people who don't constantly have to worry about finances is what the poster is talking about, but that's worlds away from never worrying about finances again. I agree, I think we have a different understanding of what it is to "worry" about finances. I am talking about the sort of worry that comes from not knowing where the next meal will come from, or not being able to pay rent. That, to me, is what worry is. I appreciate your explanation that others mean something different.
  - commandlinefan 8y ago
    I get that you're responding to the comment, but I still think you're wrong - I think OP is absolutely correct that around the $10MM mark (or higher), you actually stop worrying about your future. Maybe you're fortunate enough to be optimistic enough not to worry, but I'm in a similar position to yours: grew up as one of four kids in a household that never took in more than $30K/year. I never went hungry, but I felt lucky when we had spaghetti with meatballs instead of just tomato sauce. Now I have enough in my 401(k) that I could probably manage to squeak out enough income to live around that level for the rest of my life, but I'm constantly worried about the future (rationally or irrationally). I still have two kids who have to go to college and I hope to be able to pay for it. I still have to have a car for the next 20 years (at least) that will get me back and forth to work. I might have medical expenses. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I wouldn't really stop _worrying_ about the future until I had at least 7 figures in safe, liquid assets.
lordnacho 8y ago
This is a fairly interesting comment for me. I was exactly in your situation. I had no money in Uni. My parents were boat people with no money either. Not long after Uni, I had 100K in my account. Comfy, no mansion, no car. The first thing I spent more than a couple of grand on ever was dental work. Felt great to fix the crossbite. But here's the thing. You could just be alone your whole life, no wife, no kids. I've got friend who do that, and indeed they can live on near minimum wage and be perfectly happy. Once you decide you want a wife and kids, the budget changes. By a lot. You'll need a bigger place to live. You'll want to send the kids to private school. You'll need a bigger car. This can easily add up to several million depending on exactly what you mean. For the record I did go on to buy an expensive sports car. Not worth it, surprise surprise.
- hycaria 8y ago
  >You'll need a bigger place to live. You'll want to send the kids to private school. You'll need a bigger car. Maybe it would be more correct to say You'll want a bigger place and a bigger car too, because there's no real need there.
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    Depends a lot on the particular place you're in. And that in turn may depend a lot on where your existing network is.
    - hycaria 8y ago
      Yeah, because children die of cramping when they don't have individual rooms.
      - lordnacho 8y ago
        I grew up without my own room too. Slept in an entry hall for many years. But if you're going to have kids there's at least one other person who will have an opinion about this. You will definitely reduce your chances of having kids if you insist on finding someone who is totally fine with squishing the kids together.
drjesusphd 8y ago
I think yours is the comment disconnected from reality. But I will say that westerners tend to over-estimate what is required to live "comfortably", but $100k in savings won't get you very far, even below the poverty level. $1 million will provide you with enough money to live comfortably. You'd still need to be somewhat frugal and be mindful of the hedonic treadmill. But that's not "never worrying about finances again". $10M will get you there. $100k when you're young is a good start to retirement savings, a hefty real estate down payment, or temporary living money while you spend several years chasing a dream. But that's about it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Fargren 8y ago
I think most of the people replying to you are equating "not worrying about finances" with "not working another day in my life". Which is probably which strikes you as disconnected. I see where you are coming from, and agree with you. I am happy to say I'm at a point in my life where I feel I will never have to worry about finances, and I'm nowhere near $10MM. I'm 30 years old, live alone in an apartment that could be big enough for my wife and a kid if I decided to marry and have a kid. I save/invests around 60% of my income. I'm not at $100k on savings/investments yet, but can easily calculate when that will be and it's not too far in the future. I work full time, and I'm looking to reduce hours/days worked before I turn 40, but maybe I won't. If I will, financial implications will not be the major factor of that decision. So yeah, considering I'm comfortable with two or three less orders of magnitude less than 10 million... I'm as amazed as you are.
- 10122018 8y ago
  Thank you. I was beginning to feel like an extraterrestrial here.
- jcelerier 8y ago
  > I am happy to say I'm at a point in my life where I feel I will never have to worry about finances, if you weren't worrying about finances at some level why are you going to work today instead of going on holidays in a nice spot ? could you handle, say, your house burning overnight with all your belongings ? Never means never, not "comfortable enough to turn a blind eye to the potential problems that may come sometime in the next 60 years".
  - Fargren 8y ago
    >if you weren't worrying about finances at some level why are you going to work today instead of going on holidays in a nice spot ? I care about my finances. But I don't worry about them. I have a high degree of certainty that, barring getting a disease that prevents me from working for multiple years, I won't have major financial problems for the rest of my life. The fact that I live in a country with good public healthcare (Spain) is a factor here. >? could you handle, say, your house burning overnight with all your belongings ? 100% yes. My belongings are worth less than $10k. It would be annoying, but completely manageable.
murukesh_s 8y ago
I feel you are having this thought process because you are still a student where you can afford to live frugally. Once you get a job, your social status get raised and you would need 100k a year to live comfortably. So even $1MN is not going to take you far if you stop working, i would even suggest $10MN is also a risky bet, unless you invest it wisely as inflation can easily wipe out a large chunk of that value in few years.
- 10122018 8y ago
  > i would even suggest $10MN is also a risky bet If you had to guess, what percentage of people outside HN, outside Silicon Valley, do you think would consider having $10M to be a risky bet? I'm sorry, but I believe that is very, very disconnected from the reality that most people live in.
  - murukesh_s 8y ago
    I was talking from the silicon valley perspective. You need to adjust it based on the country you live in. I understand you, I have been a student and believe me I lived for few dollars a day (that too in a comfy way) including accommodation and food. When I started a job in 2004, making 200k USD was my dream retirement amount. Now I don't call it would be comfortable with even $10 mn and never having to work again. I would definitely keep working as long as I can even with $10 mn in my bank. It's not that I am greedy and have to constantly go for vacations or stay in 5* places. When you have a partner and kids, you really need to spend that much money to live in the social status that you ends up in your society. Home mortgage, kids school fees, dress, food, family outings and it could easily add up. You are talking about in the range of 10k-200k per year depending on the country/city you live in. In expensive cities where you need 100-200k to live comfortably, $1mn will last you only a few years even with good return on investments adjusted against inflation. It's very unfortunate but it's true. You too shall see that day when you grow up. btw i just noticed and in case you need any emergency assistance, feel free to ping me, it's not that I am rich, but can help you out in anyway i can - murukesh @ <google's email service.com >
    - 8y ago
EADGBE 8y ago
It is a bit outlandish. There's plenty of people on HN who aren't millionaires (at least not yet, and when they are, maybe they'll stop working). But maybe they're smart enough to avoid this thread. Improving your life in the least bit is the whole point of life itself. Being that as you grew up in poverty, came from nothing monetary wise, and are already in school you're already doing better than you were imagined to. You'll go far; it takes a long time. Knowledge of investments will take you far in life. Ferraris are (fast)depreciating assets that take a lot of time and extra expense, they're simply not good investments unless you're a race car driver. Not when a Toyota will do the same for you. Whenever you can, take care of your teeth. Eventually, they can hurt more than just your mouth. I wouldn't apologize. You're just being real.
antognini 8y ago
My comment sort of blew up and I didn't word it as carefully as I should have. I want to be clear that I was just summarizing the Redditor's comment, not presenting my own opinions (since I haven't really had any interactions with anyone who's all that wealthy). The point I was trying to get across was not that you need $10 million in order to live comfortably. I was just saying that having that level of wealth won't really provide you with any additional material goods. The only thing you gain at that level is more financial security. At that level of wealth you could go through a divorce and have a major medical emergency all at the same time, and still come out of it with enough to be able to live in a nice home, have a vacation home, travel in first class, etc.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago

> I'd never own a Ferrari, but why would I need to? Because you were raised poor, you still are poor, so your views on life do not revolve around one of the finest and most exclusive automobiles money can buy. You've never been in a position to be even remotely close to owning a Ferrari, so your brain has ignored the value they offer. Yes. Driving a high speed status symbol can be rewarding. It can start conversations. It can get you access to groups of people who would never have looked at you before. Is it easy to write them all off on the premise of "if they wouldn't talk to me when I had a Honda, then they are vain and I don't want to talk to them?" Sure. But you'd be missing out on potentially meaningful connections. On top of that, hearing a visceral exhaust note while rapidly accelerating is adrenaline inducing. Does it get boring after 10,000 hours? Probably. But, what doesn't in life? The same way a trust fund child never views owning a dump or being in debt. It just isn't in your payscale/range, so why waste the brain cycles?

tluyben2 8y ago
> But, what doesn't in life? Studying. I learn (not skim or read but study like I did in uni) new things all the time for the past 30 years and it does not get boring while it costs very little to do so (I do not need diplomas or certificates but I am hard on myself and I do do exams if I can find them like it is real).
throwaway1932 8y ago
> Driving a high speed status symbol [...] can get you access to groups of people who would never have looked at you before I grew up in a very wealthy area and learnt to stay away from that kind of people.
- lihaciudaniel 8y ago
  Elon Musk did it once , I guess for the lols.

rgbrenner 8y ago

100k * 10% = 10k/year. 10% is about the best return you can count on (very optimistically) I don't know what country you live in, but 10k in the US, even for a single person, would put you far below the poverty line. No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that. And let's not even talk about all of the other huge expenses that will come up later in your life. $10m * 3% = $300k/year That's a high end salary in the US. You could cut this number in half, and that would be ok too IMO. Less than some developers make. But you can buy a reasonable house, car, etc. Not a farrari though, unless you're irresponsible. If you actually intend to live on this money forever, then the return you receive is really the maximum you can spend. And that's really not as much as you would think. Especially when you figure there will be some years where you won't earn anything (during recessions). Again, if you live in an expensive country like the US. If you live in a poor country, maybe 10K is enough. But this article and these numbers, aren't really about that situation.

mrpopo 8y ago
Again, being able to live a life of leisure exclusively out of your fortune's interests reaches far higher than "living a comfortable line". You can live very comfortably with a part-time job, or even a full-time job that's not too demanding.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  The question says "without thinking about finances again". It is true the number could be lower, but there does need to be some buffer here. Otherwise you're one mistake/accident/recession/layoff away from "thinking about finances again".
10122018 8y ago
I feel disheartened that you read my entire comment and chose to focus on one number and the ineptitude of my hypothetical investment strategy instead of focusing on the overall point I was trying (and I guess failing) to make. I regret saying anything at all. For the record, thousands of Australian university students live on less than US$10K per year. You seem to think we can't exist, but we do. > No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that. And thanks, that is very helpful of you to remind me.

Merad 8y ago

> If somebody were to give me a hundred thousand dollars to invest, I am quite certain I could live comfortably for the rest of my life. I'm really curious how you forsee this working out. Even if you can live comfortably on the federal minimum wage (about $15k/year) you're going to have to be able to consistently bring in something like 25% returns on your investments to stay afloat.

nostrademons 8y ago

Which metro area, and do you intend to have a family? The rule of thumb is that you can you can withdraw about 4% of your savings per year if you want them to last forever. $100k in savings gives an annual income of about $4000/year. There are places on earth where you can live on much less than that - my wife spent less than that for 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer in rural Peru. There are very few in the U.S. Even in small towns, rent on a 1BR will run $400/month. That's already over budget. Here in the Bay Area, minimum rent is about $1000/month with roommates. Anything less and you're living in an RV. If you're really frugal you can live as a single person on about $20K/year. Kids add a whole new wrinkle. An uncomplicated hospital birth is $20K if insurance doesn't cover it. A NICU stay is about $10K/day. Just the equipment to bring a kid home safely from the hospital and keep them safe (car seat, crib, high chair, diapers, babyproofing) can run a grand or two. Living in a 1BR is not really practical with a family (yeah, that's how my mom grew up, but her one non-negotiable as an adult was a house with a yard). Day care in the Bay Area is about $20K/year for a decent program. I'm generally someone who thinks people overestimate what they need to spend to be comfortable by a lot - I saved 80% of my income, consistently, for a decade. Still, expenses go up a lot when you have kids, and oftentimes they go up a lot even without having kids, simply because inflation. I'm really glad that my top-line was quite high for the first decade of my career, because I have a number of friends from college who thought "Oh, I don't need a lot of money to be happy" and therefore took career paths that didn't generate a lot of money, then got to 35 and found out that their career path does not support having a family.

jpatokal 8y ago

You may be misinterpreting the sums a bit here. $10m being "comfortable" simply means you can invest that conservatively, earn (say) 3% interest, and spend $300k/year without drawing down your nest egg. And while $300k is obviously wealthy, it's nowhere near private jet territory.

debatem1 8y ago

I would be very surprised if you could live worry-free with the investment proceeds of $100,000. You would have to earn 18% a year on that on average just to hit the poverty line in the US, and a more likely result would be living on 1/3rd of that. At just 6k/yr you would have food covered if you ate practically, or perhaps rent covered if you lived very modestly, but not both. Assuming that you meant something closer to $1M than $100k I would start to agree. At that rate an initial investment into a home becomes realistic and more advantageous investment options open up. You are still not living high on the hog (60k/yr, ish), but you will probably only have significant problems if you are struck by disaster, illness takes you, or you have children. At a further 10x that (roughly what the OP describes) you must really screw up to ever be one of the poor again. Many inefficient ways of living (eating out regularly, nice homes, expensive hobbies) open up. These are what most people consider comforts, and so I generally agree with the sense that this is the band where permanent comfortable living becomes possible.

10122018 8y ago
> I would be very surprised if you could live worry-free with the investment proceeds of $100,000. I think you have made the assumption that I would stop working. That might be the goal of many people, but it's not mine, and it's not how I would define being comfortable. Aside from that, yes, I was using a fairly arbitrary number to make a point. I hadn't done the math. Which, here on HN, was probably a mistake. But for somebody who has never had more than $3K to their name, $100K in the bank still seems like a very comfortable safety net.
- mruts 8y ago
  Have you considered that you think 100k is comfortable because you don’t have it?
- keithwhor 8y ago
  $100k wouldn’t be a reliable safety net for long. A good network of people who trust you to execute reliably is worth way more than $100k — see: business owners who have repeatedly survived bankruptcy. I understand how ridiculous this may sound. There’s a presupposition of access to capital / employment. A large chunk of the world doesn’t have access to that, to no fault of their own. But don’t discount yourself that quickly — a non-trivial amount of people have created and captured an insane amount of value. It doesn’t seem entirely fair, and to be honest, sometimes it isn’t. Re: $100k, completely sane and reasonable expenses add up quickly. You’ll be surprised what costs rear their heads as you have more liquidity. You’re better off being broke while you’re in University and, once you’ve finished, learning the ropes and demanding compensation for your productive hours. You can calibrate your income against researched market rates / cohorts of friends if you’d like to optimize, and nobody will fault you for it — in fact, it’s expected. You’ll figure this all out but for now it doesn’t matter: everybody here is giving you sound advice (based on pre-assumption of: University-educated individual), you just can’t see past the iron wall of academia yet. It’s a much bigger world than you can imagine, with a lot of opportunity to generate wealth if that’s what you’re interested in. (It doesn’t have to be, but some sort of optimization in this direction is helpful for general contentment given your pre-supposed opportunities: not everybody gets to attend college.)

JamesBarney 8y ago

> If somebody were to give me a hundred thousand dollars to invest, I am quite certain I could live comfortably for the rest of my life This shows a pretty big disconnect. And is something no one in their 30s+ would say. The common rule of thumb is you can live off of an investment at 4% indefinitely(assuming 6% return and 2% inflation). This gives you $4,000 a year. Crappy insurance: $4,200 a year. Crappy 300 sq ft efficiency in cheaper town: $5,400 a year. Cost of owning a car: $5,000 a year(you could skip this expense, but you'll be spending most of it in increased cost of living in area with great public transit. You could also bike but not everyone's knees last forever) And this doesn't include food/entertainment/travel/internet/phone/medical bills etc.

Applejinx 8y ago
This seems like a hidden assumption. Why would you not work doing whatever it is you do as an avocation, or if you like, a hobby or dream job? If it's what you love and what fascinates you, why would that not lead to income across your whole life? Granted, it'd take years to get to the point where it's sustainable, but surely there is tangible value in this? I do not understand a mindset of 'My only purpose is to amass a pile of wealth so large that I don't spend any of it or do anything else ever, merely use the mechanisms of finance to subsist unproductively off the leakage from my giant pile of wealth, literally forever'. How is this plan in any way good, ethical or beneficial to either the person or the society they're in? You're going to die having made no use of the hoard you seized, despite having taken it from others who need wealth of their own to survive. Rethink these assumptions.
- keiferski 8y ago
  There's no need for a dichotomy between "meaningful poorly-paid work" and "unethical pointless well-paid work." It's perfectly possible to work at a nonprofit that is "beneficial to society" while simultaneously optimizing your own personal financial position.
- edanm 8y ago
  > I do not understand a mindset of 'My only purpose is to amass a pile of wealth so large that I don't spend any of it or do anything else ever, merely use the mechanisms of finance to subsist unproductively off the leakage from my giant pile of wealth, literally forever'. > You're going to die having made no use of the hoard you seized, despite having taken it from others who need wealth of their own to survive. Rethink these assumptions. I would encourage you to rethink your assumptions. What you wrote goes completely against how economics actually works. You are not "seizing" a hoard, and definitely not taking it from others. Unless you are literally a thief, that's just not how things work - you are making it seem like the economy is zero-sum, whereas it absolutely is not. Also, having a pile of wealth that you don't spend is something that no one actually does - almost everyone invests their money, which means it is put to good use, as an investment - the wealth that someone created out of thin air, is turned into the building blocks for new people to create their own wealth. I highly recommend you read a little about economics, it's one of the most rewarding and eye-opening things I've ever studied (only as an amateur, I'm not a professional economist or anything.)

hueving 8y ago

I don't think you are fully grokking "not worrying about finances". Your scenario requires consistent outsized market returns to give you less money than the poverty level. You will be wiped out by inflation, a recession, a newborn child, or a myriad of other unexpected expenses that will quickly blow through your poverty-level allowance. That's nowhere near "not worrying about finances". "Not worrying about finances" means you never have to work a job for income, you don't depend on the social safety nets of a single country, you never have to worry about affording a place to live, getting optional healthcare and so-on. You're thinking that people who don't constantly have to worry about finances is what the poster is talking about, but that's worlds away from never worrying about finances again. >I'm just amazed that anybody would think they need $10 million to be comfortable. Seriously, read the thread again. This has nothing to do with comfort, it's about FU money.

10122018 8y ago
> Seriously, read the thread again. This has nothing to do with comfort, it's about FU money. I was responding to the HN comment, not the Reddit thread. If you're talking about having "FU money" and I'm talking about being "comfortable" then I think we are talking about different things. > You're thinking that people who don't constantly have to worry about finances is what the poster is talking about, but that's worlds away from never worrying about finances again. I agree, I think we have a different understanding of what it is to "worry" about finances. I am talking about the sort of worry that comes from not knowing where the next meal will come from, or not being able to pay rent. That, to me, is what worry is. I appreciate your explanation that others mean something different.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  I get that you're responding to the comment, but I still think you're wrong - I think OP is absolutely correct that around the $10MM mark (or higher), you actually stop worrying about your future. Maybe you're fortunate enough to be optimistic enough not to worry, but I'm in a similar position to yours: grew up as one of four kids in a household that never took in more than $30K/year. I never went hungry, but I felt lucky when we had spaghetti with meatballs instead of just tomato sauce. Now I have enough in my 401(k) that I could probably manage to squeak out enough income to live around that level for the rest of my life, but I'm constantly worried about the future (rationally or irrationally). I still have two kids who have to go to college and I hope to be able to pay for it. I still have to have a car for the next 20 years (at least) that will get me back and forth to work. I might have medical expenses. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I wouldn't really stop _worrying_ about the future until I had at least 7 figures in safe, liquid assets.

lordnacho 8y ago

This is a fairly interesting comment for me. I was exactly in your situation. I had no money in Uni. My parents were boat people with no money either. Not long after Uni, I had 100K in my account. Comfy, no mansion, no car. The first thing I spent more than a couple of grand on ever was dental work. Felt great to fix the crossbite. But here's the thing. You could just be alone your whole life, no wife, no kids. I've got friend who do that, and indeed they can live on near minimum wage and be perfectly happy. Once you decide you want a wife and kids, the budget changes. By a lot. You'll need a bigger place to live. You'll want to send the kids to private school. You'll need a bigger car. This can easily add up to several million depending on exactly what you mean. For the record I did go on to buy an expensive sports car. Not worth it, surprise surprise.

hycaria 8y ago
>You'll need a bigger place to live. You'll want to send the kids to private school. You'll need a bigger car. Maybe it would be more correct to say You'll want a bigger place and a bigger car too, because there's no real need there.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  Depends a lot on the particular place you're in. And that in turn may depend a lot on where your existing network is.
  - hycaria 8y ago
    Yeah, because children die of cramping when they don't have individual rooms.
    - lordnacho 8y ago
      I grew up without my own room too. Slept in an entry hall for many years. But if you're going to have kids there's at least one other person who will have an opinion about this. You will definitely reduce your chances of having kids if you insist on finding someone who is totally fine with squishing the kids together.

drjesusphd 8y ago

I think yours is the comment disconnected from reality. But I will say that westerners tend to over-estimate what is required to live "comfortably", but $100k in savings won't get you very far, even below the poverty level. $1 million will provide you with enough money to live comfortably. You'd still need to be somewhat frugal and be mindful of the hedonic treadmill. But that's not "never worrying about finances again". $10M will get you there. $100k when you're young is a good start to retirement savings, a hefty real estate down payment, or temporary living money while you spend several years chasing a dream. But that's about it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Fargren 8y ago

I think most of the people replying to you are equating "not worrying about finances" with "not working another day in my life". Which is probably which strikes you as disconnected. I see where you are coming from, and agree with you. I am happy to say I'm at a point in my life where I feel I will never have to worry about finances, and I'm nowhere near $10MM. I'm 30 years old, live alone in an apartment that could be big enough for my wife and a kid if I decided to marry and have a kid. I save/invests around 60% of my income. I'm not at $100k on savings/investments yet, but can easily calculate when that will be and it's not too far in the future. I work full time, and I'm looking to reduce hours/days worked before I turn 40, but maybe I won't. If I will, financial implications will not be the major factor of that decision. So yeah, considering I'm comfortable with two or three less orders of magnitude less than 10 million... I'm as amazed as you are.

10122018 8y ago
Thank you. I was beginning to feel like an extraterrestrial here.
jcelerier 8y ago
> I am happy to say I'm at a point in my life where I feel I will never have to worry about finances, if you weren't worrying about finances at some level why are you going to work today instead of going on holidays in a nice spot ? could you handle, say, your house burning overnight with all your belongings ? Never means never, not "comfortable enough to turn a blind eye to the potential problems that may come sometime in the next 60 years".
- Fargren 8y ago
  >if you weren't worrying about finances at some level why are you going to work today instead of going on holidays in a nice spot ? I care about my finances. But I don't worry about them. I have a high degree of certainty that, barring getting a disease that prevents me from working for multiple years, I won't have major financial problems for the rest of my life. The fact that I live in a country with good public healthcare (Spain) is a factor here. >? could you handle, say, your house burning overnight with all your belongings ? 100% yes. My belongings are worth less than $10k. It would be annoying, but completely manageable.

murukesh_s 8y ago

I feel you are having this thought process because you are still a student where you can afford to live frugally. Once you get a job, your social status get raised and you would need 100k a year to live comfortably. So even $1MN is not going to take you far if you stop working, i would even suggest $10MN is also a risky bet, unless you invest it wisely as inflation can easily wipe out a large chunk of that value in few years.

10122018 8y ago
> i would even suggest $10MN is also a risky bet If you had to guess, what percentage of people outside HN, outside Silicon Valley, do you think would consider having $10M to be a risky bet? I'm sorry, but I believe that is very, very disconnected from the reality that most people live in.
- murukesh_s 8y ago
  I was talking from the silicon valley perspective. You need to adjust it based on the country you live in. I understand you, I have been a student and believe me I lived for few dollars a day (that too in a comfy way) including accommodation and food. When I started a job in 2004, making 200k USD was my dream retirement amount. Now I don't call it would be comfortable with even $10 mn and never having to work again. I would definitely keep working as long as I can even with $10 mn in my bank. It's not that I am greedy and have to constantly go for vacations or stay in 5* places. When you have a partner and kids, you really need to spend that much money to live in the social status that you ends up in your society. Home mortgage, kids school fees, dress, food, family outings and it could easily add up. You are talking about in the range of 10k-200k per year depending on the country/city you live in. In expensive cities where you need 100-200k to live comfortably, $1mn will last you only a few years even with good return on investments adjusted against inflation. It's very unfortunate but it's true. You too shall see that day when you grow up. btw i just noticed and in case you need any emergency assistance, feel free to ping me, it's not that I am rich, but can help you out in anyway i can - murukesh @ <google's email service.com >
  - 8y ago

EADGBE 8y ago

It is a bit outlandish. There's plenty of people on HN who aren't millionaires (at least not yet, and when they are, maybe they'll stop working). But maybe they're smart enough to avoid this thread. Improving your life in the least bit is the whole point of life itself. Being that as you grew up in poverty, came from nothing monetary wise, and are already in school you're already doing better than you were imagined to. You'll go far; it takes a long time. Knowledge of investments will take you far in life. Ferraris are (fast)depreciating assets that take a lot of time and extra expense, they're simply not good investments unless you're a race car driver. Not when a Toyota will do the same for you. Whenever you can, take care of your teeth. Eventually, they can hurt more than just your mouth. I wouldn't apologize. You're just being real.

antognini 8y ago

My comment sort of blew up and I didn't word it as carefully as I should have. I want to be clear that I was just summarizing the Redditor's comment, not presenting my own opinions (since I haven't really had any interactions with anyone who's all that wealthy). The point I was trying to get across was not that you need $10 million in order to live comfortably. I was just saying that having that level of wealth won't really provide you with any additional material goods. The only thing you gain at that level is more financial security. At that level of wealth you could go through a divorce and have a major medical emergency all at the same time, and still come out of it with enough to be able to live in a nice home, have a vacation home, travel in first class, etc.