4 ms·

> Some people think if their number "N" is high enough they can call themselves "middle class" to distinguish themselves from poorer people, but it's a small di

> Some people think if their number "N" is high enough they can call themselves "middle class" to distinguish themselves from poorer people, but it's a small distinction That isn't true. I work for a living but I also accumulate 5 figures of capital every year, do that for 20-25 years, and I don't have to work for a living anymore. Working class folks don't really have that option. > Sure you may have more toys than others, but the things you think/worry about from day to day are similar. That is poor financial planning. If you are middle income, you should be saving money so you don't have to work for a living instead of buying more toys.

Silhouette 11y ago
That is poor financial planning. If you are middle income, you should be saving money so you don't have to work for a living instead of buying more toys. That is an entirely subjective personal preference. If your goal is to be able to retire early and live off your savings, go ahead. However, if your goal is to also live before you retire and you understand that the only value of money is in the things you value that you can obtain with it, you might make entirely different financial choices. I could have saved a lot more than I have if my now-wife and I had chosen not to have the wedding we always dreamed of, but no amount of money in the future could replace the memories we have of that day. I could have saved a lot by not going to lessons with top teachers/coaches in my hobbies, but then I would not be as good at things I enjoy doing today, and I would not be able to reach new levels tomorrow. In the case of physical/competitive hobbies, there are some things I simply would never be able to do if I left them to later in life. I could have saved the money I spent on buying a nice new car, but that car has meant I could get to places and do things I would otherwise not have been able to, and again no amount of money can ever replace those experiences. I am certainly not advocating frivolous spending on things that don't really matter to you, and I am certainly not advocating spending everything you have the day you get it. But the idea that saving everything you can instead of buying some things you value has never made sense to me. It only really makes a difference if you expect that you will one day need all of that money in order to pay for the essentials, and short of catastrophic bad luck it seems unlikely that anyone with the ability to set aside significant savings in the first place will ever be in that position.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- beachstartup 11y ago
  don't take these self-important penny-pinchers you find on hn too seriously. their condescension stems from a fundamental insecurity of some sort that they're projecting onto others, it's hard to put a finger on but it's definitely there. they don't know anyone's situation, they just know spending money on things you like is bad. it's like some kind of alternative religious orthodoxy. imagine if they had the same attitudes about the kind of books you read or the people you hang out with (aka how you spend your time, and time=money) people should do whatever the hell they want to do with their own money, just like their own time.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    If you feel saving $10k/year is "extreme and condescending" and saying that is what you should do with your life... 1) The retirement laws setup basically say that is what you should do which is why their limit is ~$23k/year. 2) Good luck retiring in the future saving less than $10k/year. 3) Literally every financial planner on the planet tells you to save 10-15% of your income which for a developer is going to work out to ~$10k.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > But the idea that saving everything you can instead of buying some things you value has never made sense to me. It only really makes a difference if you expect that you will one day need all of that money in order to pay for the essentials, and short of catastrophic bad luck it seems unlikely that anyone with the ability to set aside significant savings in the first place will ever be in that position. I've seen catastrophic bad luck happen to enough people who thought it couldn't happen to them and then destroy their marriages/careers/etc pretty thoroughly that I just have no faith that is correct. > That is an entirely subjective personal preference. If your goal is to be able to retire early and live off your savings, go ahead. However, if your goal is to also live before you retire and you understand that the only value of money is in the things you value that you can obtain with it, you might make entirely different financial choices. The US savings rate is consistently in the 4-6% range with few outliers. You may want to consider I was assuming people would interpret my statement reasonably and that I was implying spending money instead of saving it when you were saving at an average rate was a bad idea. And yes, 4-6% is too small if you want to sustain your standard of living in retirement as a middle income member of society. "Toys" implies frivolity that doesn't involve something people feel are truly necessary to make themselves happy. Given on HN we know most mid-level devs make ~$70-100k [adjusted for cost of living], saving 20% isn't some extreme world view [which is what it'd take to save 5 figures/year].

Silhouette 11y ago

That is poor financial planning. If you are middle income, you should be saving money so you don't have to work for a living instead of buying more toys. That is an entirely subjective personal preference. If your goal is to be able to retire early and live off your savings, go ahead. However, if your goal is to also live before you retire and you understand that the only value of money is in the things you value that you can obtain with it, you might make entirely different financial choices. I could have saved a lot more than I have if my now-wife and I had chosen not to have the wedding we always dreamed of, but no amount of money in the future could replace the memories we have of that day. I could have saved a lot by not going to lessons with top teachers/coaches in my hobbies, but then I would not be as good at things I enjoy doing today, and I would not be able to reach new levels tomorrow. In the case of physical/competitive hobbies, there are some things I simply would never be able to do if I left them to later in life. I could have saved the money I spent on buying a nice new car, but that car has meant I could get to places and do things I would otherwise not have been able to, and again no amount of money can ever replace those experiences. I am certainly not advocating frivolous spending on things that don't really matter to you, and I am certainly not advocating spending everything you have the day you get it. But the idea that saving everything you can instead of buying some things you value has never made sense to me. It only really makes a difference if you expect that you will one day need all of that money in order to pay for the essentials, and short of catastrophic bad luck it seems unlikely that anyone with the ability to set aside significant savings in the first place will ever be in that position.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
beachstartup 11y ago
don't take these self-important penny-pinchers you find on hn too seriously. their condescension stems from a fundamental insecurity of some sort that they're projecting onto others, it's hard to put a finger on but it's definitely there. they don't know anyone's situation, they just know spending money on things you like is bad. it's like some kind of alternative religious orthodoxy. imagine if they had the same attitudes about the kind of books you read or the people you hang out with (aka how you spend your time, and time=money) people should do whatever the hell they want to do with their own money, just like their own time.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  If you feel saving $10k/year is "extreme and condescending" and saying that is what you should do with your life... 1) The retirement laws setup basically say that is what you should do which is why their limit is ~$23k/year. 2) Good luck retiring in the future saving less than $10k/year. 3) Literally every financial planner on the planet tells you to save 10-15% of your income which for a developer is going to work out to ~$10k.
fweespeech 11y ago
> But the idea that saving everything you can instead of buying some things you value has never made sense to me. It only really makes a difference if you expect that you will one day need all of that money in order to pay for the essentials, and short of catastrophic bad luck it seems unlikely that anyone with the ability to set aside significant savings in the first place will ever be in that position. I've seen catastrophic bad luck happen to enough people who thought it couldn't happen to them and then destroy their marriages/careers/etc pretty thoroughly that I just have no faith that is correct. > That is an entirely subjective personal preference. If your goal is to be able to retire early and live off your savings, go ahead. However, if your goal is to also live before you retire and you understand that the only value of money is in the things you value that you can obtain with it, you might make entirely different financial choices. The US savings rate is consistently in the 4-6% range with few outliers. You may want to consider I was assuming people would interpret my statement reasonably and that I was implying spending money instead of saving it when you were saving at an average rate was a bad idea. And yes, 4-6% is too small if you want to sustain your standard of living in retirement as a middle income member of society. "Toys" implies frivolity that doesn't involve something people feel are truly necessary to make themselves happy. Given on HN we know most mid-level devs make ~$70-100k [adjusted for cost of living], saving 20% isn't some extreme world view [which is what it'd take to save 5 figures/year].