8 ms·

But the person earning 150% more than _them_ isn't purchasing a Tesla. It's a Lamborghini or a Bugatti. It's not a 3br home in SF - it's a summer home in Napa,

But the person earning 150% more than _them_ isn't purchasing a Tesla. It's a Lamborghini or a Bugatti. It's not a 3br home in SF - it's a summer home in Napa, or a chalet in Tahoe. The person earning 150% more than _them_ is coveting the latest Bell Jetranger, or Gulfstream G700. The obsession for more is the same at all levels.

huffmsa 7y ago
Ooo I hadn't seen that they'd announced the 700. Been holding off on the 650 waiting for a refresh.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
Strictly in my case, even 4 or 5 levels of these jumps is still FAANG total compensation, so no Lamborghinis or Summer homes. Ultimately the super-rich that can afford those things are still orders of magnitude richer than people that just save/conservatively invest.
- theFeller00 7y ago
  A huracan seems like an achievable car after a number of years at a job like that. A Bugatti does not.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  Depends on where the home is. With admonishments from every corner for my not squirreling away $100/month out of my ~$1800 take-home pay, someone making $250k a year should be able to easily put away the linear equivalent of $10k a year. 5 years of that is a down payment on something decent, somewhere decent. Of course, my bread costs about as much as their bread, so they could probably getaway with a bit more. It's all about making good financial decisions, right?
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Just to toss out another example. I make about $150k. I'm a single father. I put the legal maximum into my retirement account every year, which I think is $19k this year. I have 6 months of expenses saved up in my emergency fund. We take a nice vacation every year and have luxuries like season passes to Broadway. Yes, I think it's all about making good financial decisions.
    - bsanr2 7y ago
      *after you're paid enough to make financial decisions of any sort.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        When I was making $35k/yr I was putting 10% in my retirement plan. I just had cheaper vacations, older cars, and fewer luxuries. People don't like to hear it but most financial problems are a character problem more than they are an income problem. The good news is that character flaws are not permanent. We all have them and if we can be self aware enough to acknowledge them, we can address them.
        bsanr2 7y ago
        Let me get out the list... >Before or after taxes? >What year? >Where did you live? >What was your monthly rent? >Did you rely on your family/friends for ANYTHING (including something as innocuous as "storing your childhood possessions")? >Did you have any chronic or acute health issues? >How far did you have to drive for work? >Did you have friends or family you were obliged to support, even occasionally? >Did you have a side hustle? And so on. Broadly-speaking, making $35k before taxes in 2020 in any major metropolitan area is a tightrope walk at best. The best way to encourage saving is to pay people enough money that they feel comfortable charting out a plan to save. That's a sliding scale, but I would say you hit 80% around the median wage, which is not $35k/yr. IME the people giving this advice have a critical misunderstanding of either costs or the value of cash relative to when they started out.
0x445442 7y ago
You know I hear this argument a lot and I don't buy it because it ignores a baseline at the lower end. I think there are a lot of people that are not concerned with the luxuries you reference but are deeply concerned with their base needs and random setbacks life throws at them. They basically want to save for a rainy day so as avoid stress when they encounter bumps in the road. It's like asking someone who works for minimum wage why their worried about moving up to a salaried position because compared to the people in Sudan, they have a life of luxury.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I think the point is about working out when you have enough. No matter how much you have, there is always the opportunity to be envious of others who have more. Acquiring more will not stop the envy or satiate that need. But you can decide that you have enough right now. Or you can set a goal and say "that is enough for me". That goal might be really high, or it might be really simple, that doesn't matter. The part that matters is deciding that you have enough at some point. I've been homeless, and having a warm safe place to sleep was enough. Now my sights are somewhat higher, but comparing myself to a friend who exited a few years ago is a constant source of misery. I have to keep reminding myself that I have enough at the moment, and to be grateful and enjoy what I have.
- wwwdonohue 7y ago
  I think 350k is a safe "lower end" baseline from which to build a rainy day fund, though.
  - tmh88j 7y ago
    Is this a joke? $350k annual income puts you in the top 1% of earners in the US. Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you?
    - throwawayjava 7y ago
      It's helpful to remember that the Bay Area is extremely expensive, and even more helpful to remember that some people have large families. I could pretty comfortably raise a family of 6 on $100K in a midwestern city, or a family of 6 on $80K in the rural midwest/south. Without sufficient retirement savings, mind you, and my safety net would be non-exisent. I'd need at least another $30K-$50K on those numbers to build a strong safety net (remember, it's a safety net for 2 parents + 4 kids, not for one person...). Doing the same in SFBA would probably require at least $250K. Maybe more. > Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you? The number is larger than 1%, but probably still smaller than you think. The average American definitely doesn't have a sufficient safety net. IME, the average American raising more than 1 or 2 kids almost certainly doesn't have a sufficient safety net. So, no, you don't need to be in the top 1% of earners in the US to have a safety net. But if you have a large family, you probably have to be in the top 10% to live comfortably and have a safety net and retirement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

huffmsa 7y ago

Ooo I hadn't seen that they'd announced the 700. Been holding off on the 650 waiting for a refresh.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

Strictly in my case, even 4 or 5 levels of these jumps is still FAANG total compensation, so no Lamborghinis or Summer homes. Ultimately the super-rich that can afford those things are still orders of magnitude richer than people that just save/conservatively invest.

theFeller00 7y ago
A huracan seems like an achievable car after a number of years at a job like that. A Bugatti does not.
bsanr2 7y ago
Depends on where the home is. With admonishments from every corner for my not squirreling away $100/month out of my ~$1800 take-home pay, someone making $250k a year should be able to easily put away the linear equivalent of $10k a year. 5 years of that is a down payment on something decent, somewhere decent. Of course, my bread costs about as much as their bread, so they could probably getaway with a bit more. It's all about making good financial decisions, right?
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Just to toss out another example. I make about $150k. I'm a single father. I put the legal maximum into my retirement account every year, which I think is $19k this year. I have 6 months of expenses saved up in my emergency fund. We take a nice vacation every year and have luxuries like season passes to Broadway. Yes, I think it's all about making good financial decisions.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    *after you're paid enough to make financial decisions of any sort.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      When I was making $35k/yr I was putting 10% in my retirement plan. I just had cheaper vacations, older cars, and fewer luxuries. People don't like to hear it but most financial problems are a character problem more than they are an income problem. The good news is that character flaws are not permanent. We all have them and if we can be self aware enough to acknowledge them, we can address them.
      - bsanr2 7y ago
        Let me get out the list... >Before or after taxes? >What year? >Where did you live? >What was your monthly rent? >Did you rely on your family/friends for ANYTHING (including something as innocuous as "storing your childhood possessions")? >Did you have any chronic or acute health issues? >How far did you have to drive for work? >Did you have friends or family you were obliged to support, even occasionally? >Did you have a side hustle? And so on. Broadly-speaking, making $35k before taxes in 2020 in any major metropolitan area is a tightrope walk at best. The best way to encourage saving is to pay people enough money that they feel comfortable charting out a plan to save. That's a sliding scale, but I would say you hit 80% around the median wage, which is not $35k/yr. IME the people giving this advice have a critical misunderstanding of either costs or the value of cash relative to when they started out.

0x445442 7y ago

You know I hear this argument a lot and I don't buy it because it ignores a baseline at the lower end. I think there are a lot of people that are not concerned with the luxuries you reference but are deeply concerned with their base needs and random setbacks life throws at them. They basically want to save for a rainy day so as avoid stress when they encounter bumps in the road. It's like asking someone who works for minimum wage why their worried about moving up to a salaried position because compared to the people in Sudan, they have a life of luxury.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
I think the point is about working out when you have enough. No matter how much you have, there is always the opportunity to be envious of others who have more. Acquiring more will not stop the envy or satiate that need. But you can decide that you have enough right now. Or you can set a goal and say "that is enough for me". That goal might be really high, or it might be really simple, that doesn't matter. The part that matters is deciding that you have enough at some point. I've been homeless, and having a warm safe place to sleep was enough. Now my sights are somewhat higher, but comparing myself to a friend who exited a few years ago is a constant source of misery. I have to keep reminding myself that I have enough at the moment, and to be grateful and enjoy what I have.
wwwdonohue 7y ago
I think 350k is a safe "lower end" baseline from which to build a rainy day fund, though.
- tmh88j 7y ago
  Is this a joke? $350k annual income puts you in the top 1% of earners in the US. Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you?
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    It's helpful to remember that the Bay Area is extremely expensive, and even more helpful to remember that some people have large families. I could pretty comfortably raise a family of 6 on $100K in a midwestern city, or a family of 6 on $80K in the rural midwest/south. Without sufficient retirement savings, mind you, and my safety net would be non-exisent. I'd need at least another $30K-$50K on those numbers to build a strong safety net (remember, it's a safety net for 2 parents + 4 kids, not for one person...). Doing the same in SFBA would probably require at least $250K. Maybe more. > Surely you don't believe less than 1% of people in the US can live comfortably and have a safety net, do you? The number is larger than 1%, but probably still smaller than you think. The average American definitely doesn't have a sufficient safety net. IME, the average American raising more than 1 or 2 kids almost certainly doesn't have a sufficient safety net. So, no, you don't need to be in the top 1% of earners in the US to have a safety net. But if you have a large family, you probably have to be in the top 10% to live comfortably and have a safety net and retirement.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]