5 ms·

This is similar to how I’ve thought about money for a while. Through high school, I had dollar problems. As in, things in the $1-9 range were pretty important.

by tibbon 7y ago

This is similar to how I’ve thought about money for a while. Through high school, I had dollar problems. As in, things in the $1-9 range were pretty important. Through college I had $10 problems. Early career it become $100 problems. Now anything under $1000 just doesn’t strike me as an issue. New hot water heater? Just go buy it. $10k things however are what feel like real issues now- new roof? I can do it, but’s it’s gonna put some hurt on for a while if I didn’t see it coming. $100k problems (if I didn’t have insurance and had a major health problem) would crush me like a $1000 problem would when I was 18.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
I agree with this. Although I don’t think I’m exposed to anything over $1k as a potential risk as I don’t own a car or a home, short of a lawsuit I suppose. I feel very wealthy, though in the scheme of things I am not.
Retric 7y ago
I agree, what’s useful about this mentality is not about becoming a multimillionaire, it’s about having your wealth match your income. A doctor making 250k is often living pay check to pay check while spending crazy money. Even with a steady paycheck their not accumulating wealth. Even worse, a football player with a 20million dollar contract is likely to end up broke if they instantly maximize their spending. However, if their lifestyle is based on their savings account that’s going to quickly grow to match that income.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  It bothers me when people use the phrase living paycheck to paycheck to describe both someone who literally doesn’t make enough money to cover the essential bills of living as well as someone making $200k+. These people are not in the same boat whatsoever. The doctor, or any professional making that much, simply needs to turn in the lease on the luxury car, or downsize their house, or cancel their vacation to materially change their financial circumstance. A person truly living paycheck to paycheck has to choose between eating or paying rent and there’s no luxury car to sell or turn in to free up cash flow to make that decision easier. They are very much resource constrained. This isn’t to say I don’t believe there are professionals in this boat. I just believe we need a different term for it as it’s not fair to lump these two very separate groups into the same definition. Perhaps describing them as living beyond their means.
  - Retric 7y ago
    That’s your own assumption and has nothing to do with the phrase. A doctor who loses their license is generally financially fucked. What’s being described is a massive dependence on continued employment, and someone with 200k of student debts and zero net assets easily qualifies.
    - bronco21016 7y ago
      It just seems really odd to me to use a phrase in a way that combines people who are very literally resource constrained with few options of climbing out of that hole with people who have the resources available to climb out and above their situation. Both are dependent on their paycheck but one has the ability to break away from that over time with wise choices vs the other likely never being able to break that cycle. Almost all of the world is living paycheck to paycheck by your definition. The majority of US households would be ‘financially fucked’ if their wage income was taken away for a significant period of time.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        what's wrong with using "paycheck to paycheck" this way? we already have the word "poor". "paycheck to paycheck" means something like no liquid savings and no positive cash flow. there are certainly a lot of people living this way (especially in less wealthy countries), but it's not "almost everyone".
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    These are bad assumptions and it shouldn't bother you that much. There are lots of people making $200k+ living paycheck to paycheck. If the most basic discussion about cost of living is going to blow your mind then just exit this discussion. If you wanted month-to-month rent in my building in San Francisco (as opposed to a more typical yearly lease), it is $11,000 per month, with yearly leases being about half that. People that only make "$200k+" via wage work aren't living here, just like I planned and the networking opportunities are pretty amazing.
- tooMuchCensor 7y ago
  I'm not sure I have sympathy for my fellow 10%ers who can't manage their 6 figure incomes. Overspending is not an excuse. When you only need tens of thousands of dollars to live and thrive, anything beyond is excessive. I know my peers that overspend, I weep for them. I don't envy the limo you take, I feel bad that those things are where you find pleasure.
yibg 7y ago
I seem to have stopped at some level. I still look at prices for groceries (those mangosteens are pricey) and restaurant items, let alone flight prices. This despite being in the level 4 category in the article. Maybe it’s being poor since childhood or the first generation immigrant frugality.
- pfranz 7y ago
  I definitely think the frugality can get baked in for a bunch of reasons. Also, I'll often do stuff myself because the "administrative overhead" is worse than just doing it. I had a problem with my oven and called 5 places. 3 didn't service my area and 2 didn't service my brand. I ended up just buying the part even though I would have preferred to have someone else deal with it, but I'm sure that wouldn't even occur to a bunch of people.

by tibbon 7y ago

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

I agree with this. Although I don’t think I’m exposed to anything over $1k as a potential risk as I don’t own a car or a home, short of a lawsuit I suppose. I feel very wealthy, though in the scheme of things I am not.

Retric 7y ago

I agree, what’s useful about this mentality is not about becoming a multimillionaire, it’s about having your wealth match your income. A doctor making 250k is often living pay check to pay check while spending crazy money. Even with a steady paycheck their not accumulating wealth. Even worse, a football player with a 20million dollar contract is likely to end up broke if they instantly maximize their spending. However, if their lifestyle is based on their savings account that’s going to quickly grow to match that income.

bronco21016 7y ago
It bothers me when people use the phrase living paycheck to paycheck to describe both someone who literally doesn’t make enough money to cover the essential bills of living as well as someone making $200k+. These people are not in the same boat whatsoever. The doctor, or any professional making that much, simply needs to turn in the lease on the luxury car, or downsize their house, or cancel their vacation to materially change their financial circumstance. A person truly living paycheck to paycheck has to choose between eating or paying rent and there’s no luxury car to sell or turn in to free up cash flow to make that decision easier. They are very much resource constrained. This isn’t to say I don’t believe there are professionals in this boat. I just believe we need a different term for it as it’s not fair to lump these two very separate groups into the same definition. Perhaps describing them as living beyond their means.
- Retric 7y ago
  That’s your own assumption and has nothing to do with the phrase. A doctor who loses their license is generally financially fucked. What’s being described is a massive dependence on continued employment, and someone with 200k of student debts and zero net assets easily qualifies.
  - bronco21016 7y ago
    It just seems really odd to me to use a phrase in a way that combines people who are very literally resource constrained with few options of climbing out of that hole with people who have the resources available to climb out and above their situation. Both are dependent on their paycheck but one has the ability to break away from that over time with wise choices vs the other likely never being able to break that cycle. Almost all of the world is living paycheck to paycheck by your definition. The majority of US households would be ‘financially fucked’ if their wage income was taken away for a significant period of time.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      what's wrong with using "paycheck to paycheck" this way? we already have the word "poor". "paycheck to paycheck" means something like no liquid savings and no positive cash flow. there are certainly a lot of people living this way (especially in less wealthy countries), but it's not "almost everyone".
- rolltiide 7y ago
  These are bad assumptions and it shouldn't bother you that much. There are lots of people making $200k+ living paycheck to paycheck. If the most basic discussion about cost of living is going to blow your mind then just exit this discussion. If you wanted month-to-month rent in my building in San Francisco (as opposed to a more typical yearly lease), it is $11,000 per month, with yearly leases being about half that. People that only make "$200k+" via wage work aren't living here, just like I planned and the networking opportunities are pretty amazing.
tooMuchCensor 7y ago
I'm not sure I have sympathy for my fellow 10%ers who can't manage their 6 figure incomes. Overspending is not an excuse. When you only need tens of thousands of dollars to live and thrive, anything beyond is excessive. I know my peers that overspend, I weep for them. I don't envy the limo you take, I feel bad that those things are where you find pleasure.

yibg 7y ago

I seem to have stopped at some level. I still look at prices for groceries (those mangosteens are pricey) and restaurant items, let alone flight prices. This despite being in the level 4 category in the article. Maybe it’s being poor since childhood or the first generation immigrant frugality.

pfranz 7y ago
I definitely think the frugality can get baked in for a bunch of reasons. Also, I'll often do stuff myself because the "administrative overhead" is worse than just doing it. I had a problem with my oven and called 5 places. 3 didn't service my area and 2 didn't service my brand. I ended up just buying the part even though I would have preferred to have someone else deal with it, but I'm sure that wouldn't even occur to a bunch of people.