4 ms·

I always found the notion that we have to climb upwards and always make more money to be a bit weird. As long as I have enough to live comfortably, stash some

by herio 7y ago

I always found the notion that we have to climb upwards and always make more money to be a bit weird. As long as I have enough to live comfortably, stash some away and not worry I'm good, I don't need more. As such, I don't really get involved in most of the things that this post is about nor do I particularly care to do so either. Work is what I do in order to sustain myself, it's not my life. The minute I walk out the door at work I've forgotten all about it and never think about it until morning. I realise this is me being pretty lucky but I'd probably even change career completely if I couldn't do this anymore working in tech. I think a lot of people struggle to find that balance, sadly.

harimau777 7y ago
I think that the issue is that most people do not make enough money to live comfortably, stash some away, and not worry. For example, if someone wants to own a home in a major cosmopolitan city in the United States, then they must be extremely wealthy.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  If you can't afford a home in "a major cosmopolitan city" then you probably shouldn't be there.
  - knowa42 7y ago
    This is a staggeringly naive opinion.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      That is a staggeringly empty comment.
  - deminature 7y ago
    The majority of employment opportunities in certain fields are in "major cosmopolitan cities", so being skilled in these fields obliges people to live there, whether it's financially comfortable or not.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      The point is if it isn't financially comfortable then you probably shouldn't stay.
  - redisman 7y ago
    All major cities in the US have 50-70% of the population as renters. Let me deliver the news.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      I wasn't making a distinction between renters and home owners.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I'm not sure that I follow your point. What would you have people do instead? It seems to me that having a home in a place one wants to live is part of basic prosperity.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      Yes, I'd like to have a home in London but I don't earn enough so I adjusted my expectations. I could try and bend reality by living in a bedsit or taking a long commute but neither of those results in a good life. It's much better to adjust your expectations to your income.
redisman 7y ago
It's always a trade-off too. More money and status means more time-investment, more responsibility, more stress.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>As long as I have enough to live comfortably, stash some away and not worry I'm good, I don't need more. If I was single and had no dependents, I would need very little to make myself feel comfortable. But with dependents, I feel as if I need to however much I can to ensure their security. That means the living in the best neighborhood I can afford, cultivating a network that can be useful to them in the future, having sufficient income for legal/health matters, and passive income if I become incapacitated. And this feeling is compounded by the fact that the numbers indicate that if the kids don't get funneled into the "right" tracks, then they will fall further and further behind in society as the wealth/income gap grows and it becomes that much less likely for them to be able to catch up.

by herio 7y ago

harimau777 7y ago

I think that the issue is that most people do not make enough money to live comfortably, stash some away, and not worry. For example, if someone wants to own a home in a major cosmopolitan city in the United States, then they must be extremely wealthy.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
If you can't afford a home in "a major cosmopolitan city" then you probably shouldn't be there.
- knowa42 7y ago
  This is a staggeringly naive opinion.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    That is a staggeringly empty comment.
- deminature 7y ago
  The majority of employment opportunities in certain fields are in "major cosmopolitan cities", so being skilled in these fields obliges people to live there, whether it's financially comfortable or not.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    The point is if it isn't financially comfortable then you probably shouldn't stay.
- redisman 7y ago
  All major cities in the US have 50-70% of the population as renters. Let me deliver the news.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    I wasn't making a distinction between renters and home owners.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I'm not sure that I follow your point. What would you have people do instead? It seems to me that having a home in a place one wants to live is part of basic prosperity.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    Yes, I'd like to have a home in London but I don't earn enough so I adjusted my expectations. I could try and bend reality by living in a bedsit or taking a long commute but neither of those results in a good life. It's much better to adjust your expectations to your income.

redisman 7y ago

It's always a trade-off too. More money and status means more time-investment, more responsibility, more stress.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

>As long as I have enough to live comfortably, stash some away and not worry I'm good, I don't need more. If I was single and had no dependents, I would need very little to make myself feel comfortable. But with dependents, I feel as if I need to however much I can to ensure their security. That means the living in the best neighborhood I can afford, cultivating a network that can be useful to them in the future, having sufficient income for legal/health matters, and passive income if I become incapacitated. And this feeling is compounded by the fact that the numbers indicate that if the kids don't get funneled into the "right" tracks, then they will fall further and further behind in society as the wealth/income gap grows and it becomes that much less likely for them to be able to catch up.