3 ms·

Okay. Where else is a major metro? London. Paris. Hong Kong. Singapore. Tokyo. Chicago. Los Angeles. And maybe, maybe San Francisco or Boston. If a me

by brians 8y ago

Okay. Where else is a major metro? London. Paris. Hong Kong. Singapore. Tokyo. Chicago. Los Angeles. And maybe, maybe San Francisco or Boston. If a metro area don’t have a couple major orchestras, operas, a few major sports teams, and a world class hospital, it’s hard to take “major” seriously.

lazyjones 8y ago
Vancouver, Moscow, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney, Amsterdam... $700k/year for a comfortable retirement with kids is just so far out of touch anywhere else than SF, NYC, maybe London. How can someting like 95%+ of the population who make less even cope? (Manhattan median household income is ~$85k).
- speedplane 8y ago
  >> Okay. Where else is a major metro? London. Paris. Hong Kong. Singapore. Tokyo. Chicago. Los Angeles. > Vancouver, Moscow, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney, Amsterdam These are all great cities, but once you start arguing about amenities of specific cities, you're already making value judgments about what you would consider a good life. Further, while these cities are significantly less expensive, they are just 30% or 50% less expensive, not multiple order of magnitude. My point was to show the absurdity of the underlying article's premise: that temporarily forgoing fancy coffees, monthly luxurious dinners, and other personal indulgences can lead to long term riches. It's a fantasy. Attaining either wealth requires much more than that, or changing your definition of wealth.
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > My point was to show the absurdity of the underlying article's premise: that temporarily forgoing fancy coffees, monthly luxurious dinners, and other personal indulgences can lead to long term riches. That's not the premise of the article, you've just weaseled this into the topic. First "economic freedom", now wealth and riches. The premise of the FI movement and the subject of the article is retiring comfortably at 40 without a luxurious lifestyle. No NYC penthouse, no jet-setting. Of course you will always find an even more expensive place and lifestyle for anything someone proposes, but that's just moving the goal post and missing the point of the article and movement.
- FabHK 8y ago
  > How can someting like 95%+ of the population who make less even cope? For starters, most don't aim to retire at 40 in "economic freedom".

by brians 8y ago

lazyjones 8y ago

Vancouver, Moscow, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney, Amsterdam... $700k/year for a comfortable retirement with kids is just so far out of touch anywhere else than SF, NYC, maybe London. How can someting like 95%+ of the population who make less even cope? (Manhattan median household income is ~$85k).

speedplane 8y ago
>> Okay. Where else is a major metro? London. Paris. Hong Kong. Singapore. Tokyo. Chicago. Los Angeles. > Vancouver, Moscow, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Melbourne, Sydney, Amsterdam These are all great cities, but once you start arguing about amenities of specific cities, you're already making value judgments about what you would consider a good life. Further, while these cities are significantly less expensive, they are just 30% or 50% less expensive, not multiple order of magnitude. My point was to show the absurdity of the underlying article's premise: that temporarily forgoing fancy coffees, monthly luxurious dinners, and other personal indulgences can lead to long term riches. It's a fantasy. Attaining either wealth requires much more than that, or changing your definition of wealth.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > My point was to show the absurdity of the underlying article's premise: that temporarily forgoing fancy coffees, monthly luxurious dinners, and other personal indulgences can lead to long term riches. That's not the premise of the article, you've just weaseled this into the topic. First "economic freedom", now wealth and riches. The premise of the FI movement and the subject of the article is retiring comfortably at 40 without a luxurious lifestyle. No NYC penthouse, no jet-setting. Of course you will always find an even more expensive place and lifestyle for anything someone proposes, but that's just moving the goal post and missing the point of the article and movement.
FabHK 8y ago
> How can someting like 95%+ of the population who make less even cope? For starters, most don't aim to retire at 40 in "economic freedom".