5 ms·

I like the article for the added perspective of going elsewhere. But, like recent anti-tax blog posts I have trouble believing a $6-figure salary is that bad. N

I like the article for the added perspective of going elsewhere. But, like recent anti-tax blog posts I have trouble believing a $6-figure salary is that bad. No way you only have 4k of disposable income. How is that calculated? Even in NYC you do not need to spend 30k a year on housing like his percentages would suggests. People should stop trying to describe the plight of the 6-figure earner.

pragmatic 16y ago
Depends where you live. Also (as you state) it depends on your spending habits. $100K in Fargo is a lot different than $100K in Manhattan. If the Millionaire Next Store is correct, you're likely to spend more if you live in a nice neighborhood (keeping up with the Joneses). I notice this myself. A coworker who lives in very nice neighborhood has a BMW. I drive a 14 yead old vehicle and live in a "down scale" neighborhood. So our roughly equivalent salary is going to seem much different to him (money is tight) vs me (lots of disposable income).
andrewce 16y ago
I think the author tried to justify those figures by way of "Keeping up with the Joneses" and the societal pressures that come with 6-figure salaries, but I agree with you that the numbers are not particularly optimistic. It seems like one of the basic assumptions he makes is that people in this income bracket buy nice things and big things. When I was a teacher, earning a low salary (even by teacher standards), I still had over $10k of disposable income. I can't imagine that'd go down at all if my salary tripled or quadrupled (thereby bringing it into the range he discusses).
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Not quite. In his comment posted at 31 January 2011 09:44:16PM, he explains: I'm presenting what happens by default in both options, not one optimized and one non-optimized option. What you discovered here is that, the plan to save money in the outback is robust and succeeds by default, while the plan to save money in the US is fragile and fails by default.
  - jerf 16y ago
    That's flat-out cheating. In one plan, you are willing to act like a rationalist, in the other you are a sheep. That's a useless comparison. The relevant comparison is "rationalist in the US" vs. "rationalist in the Outback". For instance, the US rationalist has an easy solution to the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses problem: Don't. I've had great success with this. It's not that hard. While there is always a dick waving contest going on somewhere in a neighborhood it's really quite easy to opt out, and for the most part nobody comes and chases you down; the dick wavers simply classify you as a loser and you decline to correct them. QED. That whole post is rationalist fail; he knows the forms, but he isn't dancing the dance. It isn't just another brand of marketing to slather over your preexisting point or desire. Well, actually it can be used that way just like any other good thing and this is far from the first self-proclaimed rationalist I've seen to fall into this trap, but hey, we all do it somewhere. We're all still human, no matter how hard we try.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I don't think it's cheating. It's recognizing that you are only rational some of the time, and attempting to bind your future irrational self to the rational decisions you make right now. I view his plan as being similar to not purchasing ice cream while you are dieting - if you were perfectly rational, you could rationally choose not to eat the ice cream in your freezer, but why give yourself the temptation to be irrational?
      - jerf 16y ago
        I must concede it is possible I'm simply having a hard time feeling what it is like to be so compelled by your neighbor's purchase of a stupidly expensive car that you must purchase your own stupidly expensive care in response. No sarcasm. I've never been that responsive to peer pressure, and from the very youngest I remember my response to the peer pressure culture was to simply leave the culture entirely in spirit, if not physically (though if I had realized that I could have I so would have). This is not normal. ... still, I really do find it hard to believe that you are so weak willed that you would do such a non-optimal thing, but you are willing to fly all the way around the world, where, I might add, such temptations will still be present even if they aren't quite as pressing. This whole argument, if it's going to apply to anybody, sure strikes me as sailing through a narrow window at best, while proclaiming the window to be far larger than it actually is.

pragmatic 16y ago

Depends where you live. Also (as you state) it depends on your spending habits. $100K in Fargo is a lot different than $100K in Manhattan. If the Millionaire Next Store is correct, you're likely to spend more if you live in a nice neighborhood (keeping up with the Joneses). I notice this myself. A coworker who lives in very nice neighborhood has a BMW. I drive a 14 yead old vehicle and live in a "down scale" neighborhood. So our roughly equivalent salary is going to seem much different to him (money is tight) vs me (lots of disposable income).

andrewce 16y ago

I think the author tried to justify those figures by way of "Keeping up with the Joneses" and the societal pressures that come with 6-figure salaries, but I agree with you that the numbers are not particularly optimistic. It seems like one of the basic assumptions he makes is that people in this income bracket buy nice things and big things. When I was a teacher, earning a low salary (even by teacher standards), I still had over $10k of disposable income. I can't imagine that'd go down at all if my salary tripled or quadrupled (thereby bringing it into the range he discusses).

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Not quite. In his comment posted at 31 January 2011 09:44:16PM, he explains: I'm presenting what happens by default in both options, not one optimized and one non-optimized option. What you discovered here is that, the plan to save money in the outback is robust and succeeds by default, while the plan to save money in the US is fragile and fails by default.
- jerf 16y ago
  That's flat-out cheating. In one plan, you are willing to act like a rationalist, in the other you are a sheep. That's a useless comparison. The relevant comparison is "rationalist in the US" vs. "rationalist in the Outback". For instance, the US rationalist has an easy solution to the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses problem: Don't. I've had great success with this. It's not that hard. While there is always a dick waving contest going on somewhere in a neighborhood it's really quite easy to opt out, and for the most part nobody comes and chases you down; the dick wavers simply classify you as a loser and you decline to correct them. QED. That whole post is rationalist fail; he knows the forms, but he isn't dancing the dance. It isn't just another brand of marketing to slather over your preexisting point or desire. Well, actually it can be used that way just like any other good thing and this is far from the first self-proclaimed rationalist I've seen to fall into this trap, but hey, we all do it somewhere. We're all still human, no matter how hard we try.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I don't think it's cheating. It's recognizing that you are only rational some of the time, and attempting to bind your future irrational self to the rational decisions you make right now. I view his plan as being similar to not purchasing ice cream while you are dieting - if you were perfectly rational, you could rationally choose not to eat the ice cream in your freezer, but why give yourself the temptation to be irrational?
    - jerf 16y ago
      I must concede it is possible I'm simply having a hard time feeling what it is like to be so compelled by your neighbor's purchase of a stupidly expensive car that you must purchase your own stupidly expensive care in response. No sarcasm. I've never been that responsive to peer pressure, and from the very youngest I remember my response to the peer pressure culture was to simply leave the culture entirely in spirit, if not physically (though if I had realized that I could have I so would have). This is not normal. ... still, I really do find it hard to believe that you are so weak willed that you would do such a non-optimal thing, but you are willing to fly all the way around the world, where, I might add, such temptations will still be present even if they aren't quite as pressing. This whole argument, if it's going to apply to anybody, sure strikes me as sailing through a narrow window at best, while proclaiming the window to be far larger than it actually is.