5 ms·

For a few years? What kind of lifestyle do you have that a few millions only last a few years? I really doubt with that math you would have been able to save a

For a few years? What kind of lifestyle do you have that a few millions only last a few years? I really doubt with that math you would have been able to save a few millions in the first place, unless you won a lottery.

sidlls 7y ago
Typical cash plus equity for an experienced engineer is going to top $300k/yr at the low end. Millions might be an exaggeration, but it's certainly trivial to save well north of $1M in a decade on that salary, barring misfortune like a health incident.
- taneq 7y ago
  The argument was that if you're capable of saving that much, you're going to have a hard time spending it in only a few years, especially if you're not working.
- fooker 7y ago
  >barring misfortune like a health incident. Here is a reminder to everyone that a health incident is only a financial misfortune in the US.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    If a health incident makes you unable to work, that's a financial issue in much of the world.
    - pound 7y ago
      It's not just being unable to work, it's about all savings: "66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues"
    - NotHereNotThere 7y ago
      Not being able to work is one thing. Not being able to work and have hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt because of it is a whole other situation
    - fooker 7y ago
      > that's a financial issue in much of the world. Well, unless they have a pension. Which about half the countries in the world seems to provide, at least for government jobs.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        There often are in the US as well for government jobs. But they usually depend on a significant number of years of tenure and defined benefit plans are pretty rare at this point for private employers. (Which isn't even necessarily a bad thing unless you think retirement benefits should be heavily tied to decades of employment with a single company.)
tiborsaas 7y ago
I envy the bubble you live in. If you have say $3M in the bank and you spend $50k / year then it lasts you 60 years doing nothing.
- MetalGuru 7y ago
  Way more assuming you’re generating interest (assuming you’re not a financial idiot who’s keeping $3MM in cash)
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Beginning in 50s, health insurance alone is $25k per year in premiums with after tax money plus ~$13k out of pocket maximum per year. Don’t know how a couple can afford to forego that, especially if they have assets that can be taken, the hospital will come for them.
  - tiborsaas 7y ago
    Oh, I almost always forget how fucked up American healthcare system is. However with this much money, even a 1M stacked, one can live a happy life in anywhere in the world. I have a friend living in Berlin working 10h / week for a SF startup remotely and meanwhile he enjoys playing music and building stuff for fun.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Yes, if I didn’t have passive income sufficient to pay for all of my and my family’s healthcare, I wouldn’t feel economically secure in the US. And that means at least $70k to $150k in passive income per year.
      - tiborsaas 7y ago
        That sounds very depressing TBH. With 70k passive I could retire in Hungary. Just by having $150k in your bank account would give you 5-8 years of runway in Budapest to live a very good life.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
At a FANG they are probably living in a high COL - got to pay that mortgage
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Also, if your friends are also earning similar amounts, then the activities they take part in are probably going to be more costly too. Which usually means if you want to continue being in the circle, or at least an active member of it, you’ll need to engage in some of those activities, especially if you have kids, and then things get expensive. Throw in a healthcare issue and there’s not much wiggle room.
dmoy 7y ago
A couple million would let you retire and live off of say $60k/yr indefinitely if and only if you magically solved healthcare issues. If you've say spent $100k/yr and still saved up $2m (still easily doable), then you don't want to retire yet because you're gonna eventually run out of cash. Sure it'll last more than a few years, but it's going to deplete the longer you go. Also figure your healthcare costs increase drastically without being employed. Also half of my statement wasn't a financial one, just an assumption that after a few years you might get bored and want to do something for employment anyway.

sidlls 7y ago

Typical cash plus equity for an experienced engineer is going to top $300k/yr at the low end. Millions might be an exaggeration, but it's certainly trivial to save well north of $1M in a decade on that salary, barring misfortune like a health incident.

taneq 7y ago
The argument was that if you're capable of saving that much, you're going to have a hard time spending it in only a few years, especially if you're not working.
fooker 7y ago
>barring misfortune like a health incident. Here is a reminder to everyone that a health incident is only a financial misfortune in the US.
- ghaff 7y ago
  If a health incident makes you unable to work, that's a financial issue in much of the world.
  - pound 7y ago
    It's not just being unable to work, it's about all savings: "66.5 percent of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues"
  - NotHereNotThere 7y ago
    Not being able to work is one thing. Not being able to work and have hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt because of it is a whole other situation
  - fooker 7y ago
    > that's a financial issue in much of the world. Well, unless they have a pension. Which about half the countries in the world seems to provide, at least for government jobs.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      There often are in the US as well for government jobs. But they usually depend on a significant number of years of tenure and defined benefit plans are pretty rare at this point for private employers. (Which isn't even necessarily a bad thing unless you think retirement benefits should be heavily tied to decades of employment with a single company.)

tiborsaas 7y ago

I envy the bubble you live in. If you have say $3M in the bank and you spend $50k / year then it lasts you 60 years doing nothing.

MetalGuru 7y ago
Way more assuming you’re generating interest (assuming you’re not a financial idiot who’s keeping $3MM in cash)
lotsofpulp 7y ago
Beginning in 50s, health insurance alone is $25k per year in premiums with after tax money plus ~$13k out of pocket maximum per year. Don’t know how a couple can afford to forego that, especially if they have assets that can be taken, the hospital will come for them.
- tiborsaas 7y ago
  Oh, I almost always forget how fucked up American healthcare system is. However with this much money, even a 1M stacked, one can live a happy life in anywhere in the world. I have a friend living in Berlin working 10h / week for a SF startup remotely and meanwhile he enjoys playing music and building stuff for fun.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Yes, if I didn’t have passive income sufficient to pay for all of my and my family’s healthcare, I wouldn’t feel economically secure in the US. And that means at least $70k to $150k in passive income per year.
    - tiborsaas 7y ago
      That sounds very depressing TBH. With 70k passive I could retire in Hungary. Just by having $150k in your bank account would give you 5-8 years of runway in Budapest to live a very good life.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

At a FANG they are probably living in a high COL - got to pay that mortgage

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Also, if your friends are also earning similar amounts, then the activities they take part in are probably going to be more costly too. Which usually means if you want to continue being in the circle, or at least an active member of it, you’ll need to engage in some of those activities, especially if you have kids, and then things get expensive. Throw in a healthcare issue and there’s not much wiggle room.

dmoy 7y ago

A couple million would let you retire and live off of say $60k/yr indefinitely if and only if you magically solved healthcare issues. If you've say spent $100k/yr and still saved up $2m (still easily doable), then you don't want to retire yet because you're gonna eventually run out of cash. Sure it'll last more than a few years, but it's going to deplete the longer you go. Also figure your healthcare costs increase drastically without being employed. Also half of my statement wasn't a financial one, just an assumption that after a few years you might get bored and want to do something for employment anyway.