25 ms·

I felt like that until I got to around $2.5 million liquid net worth. Now I still like money, but each additional dollar is starting to show diminishing margina

I felt like that until I got to around $2.5 million liquid net worth. Now I still like money, but each additional dollar is starting to show diminishing marginal utility. Though of course I'm still trying to grow my net worth, it's no longer the main focus of my life, especially now that I'm "retired" from my main career at least. I split my time between gaming, running, reading, socializing and working on my trading bot (got rich the old fashioned way of saving my salary, the bot is for fun and to grow hopefully faster than SPX with better Sharpe ratio, so far so good). I think while you don't have "FU money" it's important for money to be the main focus of your life. You don't have freedom if you don't have a lot of money and you can't be 100% happy without freedom, at least in my experience, though I know opinions vary here.

nicoburns 6y ago
So 99.99% of the world can't be happy? Don't you think it's quite selfish of you to prioritise achieving this for yourself over allowing a greater number of people to have a more reasonable level of wealth?
- pyrrhotech 6y ago
  I shouldn't speak for everyone. For me personally, I was happyish during my career but I'm definitely much, much happier now that I'm wealthy and retired. And it's not a short term buzz, I've been retired for 2 years and the feeling hasn't worn off. I know it sucks we don't have unlimited resources for everyone in society to be free and 100% happy. Maybe someday we will with full automation. In the meantime, most people tend to agree with me that at least to a degree more money = more happiness, it's the reason that capitalism works afterall, and it raises the standard of living - or choice of not working - for all of us over time
  - kace91 6y ago
    I’m curious, in which ways do you feel that money made you happier? As in, what were the important things it has enabled for you that weren't available under, say, an average engineer's salary?
    - pyrrhotech 6y ago
      Not the material aspect of what it can buy - but the freedom to not have to work is where the big boost of happiness came from for me, though I cannot guarantee it would for you if you truly love your career. For me, programming was always just a tool, a job, a means to an end. Sure it's kind of interesting, but there's far more interesting ways to spend my time. Also, I hate bosses, performance reviews, bullshit non-producing jobs who make up the majority of your tech peers, commutes, forced social small talk with people you don't like, etc. So even if I 100% loved what I did everyday, I wouldn't like all that BS that comes with it. Now, being able to spend my time as I please with full autonomy - that is where the incredible boost in my happiness has come from
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I guess it depends on your job. I have significant control over what I do and at least a decent chunk of it is stuff I would enjoy doing anyway. (Normally) I like to travel and like having a lot of interactions with peers at my own and other companies. Bureaucracy is annoying but not overly so. Not to say I won't retire--I will--but I'm also not in a big hurry and could probably negotiate some incremental time off if that became a big issue.
      - bavell 6y ago
        Agreed, freedom and autonomy to do what I want and like is what really makes me happy and money is simply a means to that end. I'm still just getting started and nowhere near where I want to be so the hustle continues...
  - crotho 6y ago
    > most people tend to agree with me that at least to a degree more money = more happiness, it's the reason that capitalism works What do you think capitalism is exactly? What's your definition that fits the context of that statement?
  - bumby 6y ago
    >at least to a degree more money = more happiness Except the research shows marginal “experiential” happiness (as opposed to “reflecting” happiness) occurs much, much lower than your threshold. To this point, both you and the comment you’re responding to could be right (although I’m not sure about their tone that you have a duty to give money away)
    - Swizec 6y ago
      The problem with those studies is that they’re based on cashflow. Yes more cashflow doesn’t increase experiential happiness after a point. But it turns you into a wage slave. Turn off the cashflow and everything collapses. Wealth gives you happy levels of cashflow regardless of working for it right now. Hence it creates freedom. You won’t be more happy by having wealth, you’ll be more reliably/resiliently happy.
      - bumby 6y ago
        You're right that they focused on income (not quite the same as cashflow but it's a good point). What was interesting is that above a certain income, life satisfaction actually began to decrease. I wonder if there is a similar corollary to wealth.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - castlecrasher2 6y ago
    Out of curiosity, what do you do with your day now that you're retired?
- the-dude 6y ago
  > though I know opinions vary here Why are you reacting so heavily on a quite balanced comment?
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Do you really think "my only interest is money" is a balanced comment? I don't see how this even makes sense. If you didn't have other things that you wanted to spend the money on then it wouldn't be much use.
    - dx87 6y ago
      They said that they aren't only focused on money now, and that they care more about doing things they enjoy, pretty much the opposite of "my only interest is money". You should read the comment again, since it looks like you rushed to call them selfish without even understanding what they said.
      - _dibly 6y ago
        Well they qualified that statement with 'I literally have enough money not to worry about it and now my interest is in the things I spend my money on' so I'm not sure if that disqualifies what GP was saying. It's easy to say you're not solely focused on money anymore when you have enough money to never worry about your financial security again.
    - bavell 6y ago
      They never said that, you're putting words in their mouth. They said their main focus was money and that they're not speaking for everyone. Yes, that's a very balanced comment. You are the one who is being unbalanced.
artemonster 6y ago
how is it possible to save 2.5 mil from salary? I am from upper 5% in germany in terms of salary, and I can only manage to save ~10kEur/year, while maintaining decent lifestyle. An order of magnitude lower than you'd need to retire with such a sum after 20 years or so. How do you do that? Genuine question
- mstipetic 6y ago
  Germany is not set up to have people get rich from a salary. Everyone has a comfortable life, but it's very hard to get "rich." That's one of the reasons I left Germany
  - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
    Out of curiosity what do you do and where did you move?
    - mstipetic 6y ago
      I run magicsandbox.com. Right now moving to all remote, still weighing options but might settle back in my home country (Croatia)
      - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
        Nice, congrats!
  - rv-de 6y ago
    When you're settling down you can still come back to Germany enjoying a mostly functioning society and reasonable expenses. You'll just need to figure out a way to evade taxes.
    - mstipetic 6y ago
      I have no reason to be there. Came there for the "startup scene" but realised after a while how weak, unoriginal and underpaid most of it is
dusted 6y ago
An interesting point of view. Practically, I agree with you, that FU wealth is probably the most realistic way to achieve the freedom required for some personality types to achieve happiness. I am unfortunately one of them, intellectually, I've conclude the same for myself many times over, and have been unable to change my view on this, as much as I'd love to find peace in my sitaution and enjoy life (tm). What's hard about it is that it's probably impossible for most people to achieve this kind of wealth, after all, in the current socioeconomic situation, you can't be rich in any traditional sense of the word, without someone else being relatively less well off. Until we have robots doing our work, and almost-infinite access to resources through no or little work of our own, the traditional definitions are valid.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  > you can't be rich in any traditional sense of the word, without someone else being relatively less well off. I was with you up until here. The total amount of wealth in the world is constantly growing, and you can positively influence it's creation, by introducing new efficiencies or new goods and services that didn't exist before. In many ways, the wealth of the average person living today is much greater than kings and emperors living centuries ago.
  - silly-silly 6y ago
    >In many ways, the wealth of the average person living today >is much greater than kings and emperors living centuries >ago. I dunno man, I'm average and can't afford N wives, have someone do my dishes, clothes, own and tend thousands of hectares of land for me, father 12 children. Maybe i'm reading about different kings than you do.
    - jimbokun 6y ago
      But I bet the quality of health care available to you exceeds the imagination of those kings and emperors. The probability of fathering 12 children, if anything, is probably inversely proportional to your wealth, these days. Not sure owning and tending thousands of hectares of land has much utility in and of itself. It was a proxy for generating wealth, like someone owning a lot of equities today. But the question is what utility was available to purchase with that wealth? Granted kings and emperors in some ways were better off in some ways than the median wage earners today, but not in others.
DennisP 6y ago
Congrats. Level achieved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI
pietrovismara 6y ago
So are you saying that since the big majority of people in the world will never get to your kind of net worth (2 mil++) they will never have real freedom? Glad that we agree, that's what I believe too and that's why I strongly hate capitalism. You aren't free at all unless you have enough capital to stop being forced to take any job offer just to survive.
- lukas099 6y ago
  You don't have to have that high of a net worth if your spending is lower. You only need to save 25x your annual spending to retire. If you only spend $30,000/year, you only need $750,000 to retire.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    Still unattainable for most, and even when it is it requires to slave your life away. Not enough for me.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    "only"; it's a very privileged position to be in if you are able to earn so much and spend so little to be able to head in that direction. Personally, after spending most of the past decade in substandard / 'affordable' student housing, I'm now very comfortable with owning a house and making ends meet at the end of the month. I've got enough savings to keep afloat for a year if I somehow lose my job, and I even have some in the stock market because savings account interest is trash at the moment (iirc because of European money lending policy, causing cheap mortgages, causing low savings account interests, and causing climbing house prices from both low mortgage interest rates + investments in real estate).
- sershe 6y ago
  What is your alternative? Those tried so far involved being forced to take a job all the same, except you didn't even get a shot at freedom while doing it.
mellosouls 6y ago
I think while you don't have "FU money" it's important for money to be the main focus of your life You may feel very differently when you are looking back on your life near the end of it.
- taneq 6y ago
  I don't know how old GP is but their life sounds like it's pretty enjoyable and not what we generally picture when we think "a life whose main focus is money". I think what they're saying is that it's important to focus on money early on if it's achievable for you to reach this level of independent wealth in a reasonable time frame.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    They should probably phrase it better then - as it stands it's terrible advice.
    - tiborsaas 6y ago
      It's not a terrible advice. I'm still trying to but my first apartment at 38. It's essential to have a some financial ability (or willingness to plan ahead at least) to succeed in life.
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        "some financial ability" is not remotely the same as money being your main focus in life.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Don't overweight the opinion of someone on their deathbed. I don't think optimizing your life around how you'll feel about it during your final five minutes is a good way to go. Dying is a very lonely experience (every living thing goes into death alone, etc.), so of course your thoughts will be overwhelmingly focused on family friends etc. during that time.
bumby 6y ago
My personal opinion is this only captures one third of what most people need to be happy. To paraphrase people much smarter than me, I think people need to meet the needs of 1) mastery 2) autonomy and 3) purpose. Being financially free can certainly help with #2 but I don't think it inherently addresses the others.
throw0101a 6y ago
> You don't have freedom if you don't have a lot of money and you can't be 100% happy without freedom, at least in my experience, though I know opinions vary here. The amount of money one 'needs' depends on a lot of things, like cost of living in the area you happen to be in. While US$ 2.5M may not seem like a lot in the US, one can live like a king in may other areas. One doesn't even need to live in one particular place: people cruise around the world, often spending less than US$ 40K per year in total expenses if you don't get too fancy: * https://www.instagram.com/sailinguma/ https://www.instagram.com/sailinguma/ * https://www.youtube.com/sailinguma https://www.youtube.com/sailinguma Your nest egg would allow for several decades at that burn rate.
- mastax 6y ago
  Never thought I'd see Sailing Uma on HN. That's the dream, just waiting for starlink to have more coverage.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    See also SV Delos (with their 'giant' satellite dish), Sailing Ruby Rose, Sailing Ran, and the Wynns. (La vagabond has become too lifestyle-y for me; liked their earlier stuff on the Beneteau.)
- pc86 6y ago
  $2.5 million is enough for a six-figure salary in retirement, without touching the principle. Assuming there is post-tax money in there, you're going to have a much lower effective tax rate than you did while working. And if you're retired you probably have much lower expenses than you did before (most retired folks aren't making a big mortgage payment even if they're young). Unless you want to live an extravagant lifestyle (nothing wrong with that) $2.5 million is more than enough to retire in all but the most expensive US cities. And let's remember this is liquid, so real estate doesn't really count in that. One or two properties you're not living in could easily float that extravagant lifestyle for years.
- WJW 6y ago
  2.5m at 3% SWR (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/safe-withdrawal-rate-swr-method.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/safe-withdrawal-rate-sw...) would generate 75k per year thus resulting in a negative burn rate and last for infinite time (or at least until society no longer uses financial instruments). At the very least, it'd last much longer than "several" decades.
ajuc 6y ago
Well, I'm in my mid 30s and I only have a fraction of your net worth, but I've decided a few years ago that I'll be splitting my time +- 2 years of working, 9 gap months (spring-autumn), etc. I have a lot of health problems that will probably kill me before retirement one way or another so I don't feel like saving till I'm 45. It helps a lot that I work remotely in IT and live in Poland which is a very cheap country and I'm very low maintenance (for example my ideal vacations is biking and playing D&D on the internet which is all I did in 2019 ;) ). I have 0 interest in cars and drive 1997 Fiat Punto in which a replacement engine costs less than my daily salary :) I know because we've burned it once by accident :) I don't think money have to be the main focus, as long a your have a sustainable plan with big margin of safety. I could live for 10 years out of my savings easily, that's enough freedom for me if the alternative is delaying the freedom till I'm old. It would probably be a little different with kids, but we don't want to have kids with my wife, so that's not an issue.
- pc86 6y ago
  I'm also in my mid 30's and still have a negative net worth but retirement savings are growing strong (especially since February/March). Net worth is only part of the picture; if inheritance is not a priority then you can have a stable and secure future with a very small net worth, you just (probably) can't retire until it's cleaned up.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  I could become homeless any time. I have a client who pays me and I could live in Poland relatively nicely if it was steady. I should probably get more clients, but damn it is hard for me. I am actually thinking of moving to Poland if this guy keeps paying me, but I probably should go after I got 2 clients minimum.
piva00 6y ago
> I think while you don't have "FU money" it's important for money to be the main focus of your life. You don't have freedom if you don't have a lot of money and you can't be 100% happy without freedom, at least in my experience, though I know opinions vary here. The thing is that not everyone can or will achieve that. If we know that, what's the main drive for others to do that? We don't live in a system where this is possible, I'm glad you've achieved it but preaching this "money should be the main focus of your life until you have FU money" will just make a lot of people frustrated and unfulfilled. So why should that be the main goal of anyone's life when there is so much more to life than that? Are we all slaves to money then? Are our lives only meant to be lived after we are free from the shackles of money? I really don't like that perspective.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  That would be an extremely sad thing for me at least. Knowing that I would have no way to become truly free. Free as in I don't owe anyone my time. Maybe others can accept it or are forced to accept it. I just can't. But people of course are different. Currently I just can't wait to reach that state. Sometimes I'm counting days even. I could never be happy/relaxed as long as I am forced to work, or forced to work under someone. With regular work, I think I am saving around 70% of my total compensation, but I am also finding ways to do side-hustles. Hopefully I can hit something that will help me reach passive income or otherwise I will be dependant on my career compensation. So as long as I haven't achieved that state I will keep trying and spend most of my time trying to reach this state.
  - floor2 6y ago
    If you had millions of dollars, you'd still need to brush your teeth. And sleep and eat and shower and use the toilet. Would those things mean you're not truly free? You'll always be 'forced to work' even if that work is just keeping your body alive and well. Perhaps it would be worth trying to find happiness now, rather than hoping it's hidden behind the next achievement.
    - mewpmewp2 6y ago
pc86 6y ago
I'm surprised it took you until $2.5 million to see diminishing marginal utility.
blkknightarms 6y ago
That's not nearly enough to retire long-term somewhere like the Bay Area or NYC. I did the math for Palo Alto, and it turns out someone needs an additional 130% of real estate worth to afford the taxes into their golden years.

nicoburns 6y ago

So 99.99% of the world can't be happy? Don't you think it's quite selfish of you to prioritise achieving this for yourself over allowing a greater number of people to have a more reasonable level of wealth?

pyrrhotech 6y ago
I shouldn't speak for everyone. For me personally, I was happyish during my career but I'm definitely much, much happier now that I'm wealthy and retired. And it's not a short term buzz, I've been retired for 2 years and the feeling hasn't worn off. I know it sucks we don't have unlimited resources for everyone in society to be free and 100% happy. Maybe someday we will with full automation. In the meantime, most people tend to agree with me that at least to a degree more money = more happiness, it's the reason that capitalism works afterall, and it raises the standard of living - or choice of not working - for all of us over time
- kace91 6y ago
  I’m curious, in which ways do you feel that money made you happier? As in, what were the important things it has enabled for you that weren't available under, say, an average engineer's salary?
  - pyrrhotech 6y ago
    Not the material aspect of what it can buy - but the freedom to not have to work is where the big boost of happiness came from for me, though I cannot guarantee it would for you if you truly love your career. For me, programming was always just a tool, a job, a means to an end. Sure it's kind of interesting, but there's far more interesting ways to spend my time. Also, I hate bosses, performance reviews, bullshit non-producing jobs who make up the majority of your tech peers, commutes, forced social small talk with people you don't like, etc. So even if I 100% loved what I did everyday, I wouldn't like all that BS that comes with it. Now, being able to spend my time as I please with full autonomy - that is where the incredible boost in my happiness has come from
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I guess it depends on your job. I have significant control over what I do and at least a decent chunk of it is stuff I would enjoy doing anyway. (Normally) I like to travel and like having a lot of interactions with peers at my own and other companies. Bureaucracy is annoying but not overly so. Not to say I won't retire--I will--but I'm also not in a big hurry and could probably negotiate some incremental time off if that became a big issue.
    - bavell 6y ago
      Agreed, freedom and autonomy to do what I want and like is what really makes me happy and money is simply a means to that end. I'm still just getting started and nowhere near where I want to be so the hustle continues...
- crotho 6y ago
  > most people tend to agree with me that at least to a degree more money = more happiness, it's the reason that capitalism works What do you think capitalism is exactly? What's your definition that fits the context of that statement?
- bumby 6y ago
  >at least to a degree more money = more happiness Except the research shows marginal “experiential” happiness (as opposed to “reflecting” happiness) occurs much, much lower than your threshold. To this point, both you and the comment you’re responding to could be right (although I’m not sure about their tone that you have a duty to give money away)
  - Swizec 6y ago
    The problem with those studies is that they’re based on cashflow. Yes more cashflow doesn’t increase experiential happiness after a point. But it turns you into a wage slave. Turn off the cashflow and everything collapses. Wealth gives you happy levels of cashflow regardless of working for it right now. Hence it creates freedom. You won’t be more happy by having wealth, you’ll be more reliably/resiliently happy.
    - bumby 6y ago
      You're right that they focused on income (not quite the same as cashflow but it's a good point). What was interesting is that above a certain income, life satisfaction actually began to decrease. I wonder if there is a similar corollary to wealth.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, what do you do with your day now that you're retired?
the-dude 6y ago
> though I know opinions vary here Why are you reacting so heavily on a quite balanced comment?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Do you really think "my only interest is money" is a balanced comment? I don't see how this even makes sense. If you didn't have other things that you wanted to spend the money on then it wouldn't be much use.
  - dx87 6y ago
    They said that they aren't only focused on money now, and that they care more about doing things they enjoy, pretty much the opposite of "my only interest is money". You should read the comment again, since it looks like you rushed to call them selfish without even understanding what they said.
    - _dibly 6y ago
      Well they qualified that statement with 'I literally have enough money not to worry about it and now my interest is in the things I spend my money on' so I'm not sure if that disqualifies what GP was saying. It's easy to say you're not solely focused on money anymore when you have enough money to never worry about your financial security again.
  - bavell 6y ago
    They never said that, you're putting words in their mouth. They said their main focus was money and that they're not speaking for everyone. Yes, that's a very balanced comment. You are the one who is being unbalanced.

artemonster 6y ago

how is it possible to save 2.5 mil from salary? I am from upper 5% in germany in terms of salary, and I can only manage to save ~10kEur/year, while maintaining decent lifestyle. An order of magnitude lower than you'd need to retire with such a sum after 20 years or so. How do you do that? Genuine question

mstipetic 6y ago
Germany is not set up to have people get rich from a salary. Everyone has a comfortable life, but it's very hard to get "rich." That's one of the reasons I left Germany
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  Out of curiosity what do you do and where did you move?
  - mstipetic 6y ago
    I run magicsandbox.com. Right now moving to all remote, still weighing options but might settle back in my home country (Croatia)
    - ChuckNorris89 6y ago
      Nice, congrats!
- rv-de 6y ago
  When you're settling down you can still come back to Germany enjoying a mostly functioning society and reasonable expenses. You'll just need to figure out a way to evade taxes.
  - mstipetic 6y ago
    I have no reason to be there. Came there for the "startup scene" but realised after a while how weak, unoriginal and underpaid most of it is

dusted 6y ago

An interesting point of view. Practically, I agree with you, that FU wealth is probably the most realistic way to achieve the freedom required for some personality types to achieve happiness. I am unfortunately one of them, intellectually, I've conclude the same for myself many times over, and have been unable to change my view on this, as much as I'd love to find peace in my sitaution and enjoy life (tm). What's hard about it is that it's probably impossible for most people to achieve this kind of wealth, after all, in the current socioeconomic situation, you can't be rich in any traditional sense of the word, without someone else being relatively less well off. Until we have robots doing our work, and almost-infinite access to resources through no or little work of our own, the traditional definitions are valid.

jimbokun 6y ago
> you can't be rich in any traditional sense of the word, without someone else being relatively less well off. I was with you up until here. The total amount of wealth in the world is constantly growing, and you can positively influence it's creation, by introducing new efficiencies or new goods and services that didn't exist before. In many ways, the wealth of the average person living today is much greater than kings and emperors living centuries ago.
- silly-silly 6y ago
  >In many ways, the wealth of the average person living today >is much greater than kings and emperors living centuries >ago. I dunno man, I'm average and can't afford N wives, have someone do my dishes, clothes, own and tend thousands of hectares of land for me, father 12 children. Maybe i'm reading about different kings than you do.
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    But I bet the quality of health care available to you exceeds the imagination of those kings and emperors. The probability of fathering 12 children, if anything, is probably inversely proportional to your wealth, these days. Not sure owning and tending thousands of hectares of land has much utility in and of itself. It was a proxy for generating wealth, like someone owning a lot of equities today. But the question is what utility was available to purchase with that wealth? Granted kings and emperors in some ways were better off in some ways than the median wage earners today, but not in others.

DennisP 6y ago

Congrats. Level achieved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

pietrovismara 6y ago

So are you saying that since the big majority of people in the world will never get to your kind of net worth (2 mil++) they will never have real freedom? Glad that we agree, that's what I believe too and that's why I strongly hate capitalism. You aren't free at all unless you have enough capital to stop being forced to take any job offer just to survive.

lukas099 6y ago
You don't have to have that high of a net worth if your spending is lower. You only need to save 25x your annual spending to retire. If you only spend $30,000/year, you only need $750,000 to retire.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  Still unattainable for most, and even when it is it requires to slave your life away. Not enough for me.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  "only"; it's a very privileged position to be in if you are able to earn so much and spend so little to be able to head in that direction. Personally, after spending most of the past decade in substandard / 'affordable' student housing, I'm now very comfortable with owning a house and making ends meet at the end of the month. I've got enough savings to keep afloat for a year if I somehow lose my job, and I even have some in the stock market because savings account interest is trash at the moment (iirc because of European money lending policy, causing cheap mortgages, causing low savings account interests, and causing climbing house prices from both low mortgage interest rates + investments in real estate).
sershe 6y ago
What is your alternative? Those tried so far involved being forced to take a job all the same, except you didn't even get a shot at freedom while doing it.

mellosouls 6y ago

I think while you don't have "FU money" it's important for money to be the main focus of your life You may feel very differently when you are looking back on your life near the end of it.

taneq 6y ago
I don't know how old GP is but their life sounds like it's pretty enjoyable and not what we generally picture when we think "a life whose main focus is money". I think what they're saying is that it's important to focus on money early on if it's achievable for you to reach this level of independent wealth in a reasonable time frame.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  They should probably phrase it better then - as it stands it's terrible advice.
  - tiborsaas 6y ago
    It's not a terrible advice. I'm still trying to but my first apartment at 38. It's essential to have a some financial ability (or willingness to plan ahead at least) to succeed in life.
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      "some financial ability" is not remotely the same as money being your main focus in life.
ahelwer 6y ago
Don't overweight the opinion of someone on their deathbed. I don't think optimizing your life around how you'll feel about it during your final five minutes is a good way to go. Dying is a very lonely experience (every living thing goes into death alone, etc.), so of course your thoughts will be overwhelmingly focused on family friends etc. during that time.

bumby 6y ago

My personal opinion is this only captures one third of what most people need to be happy. To paraphrase people much smarter than me, I think people need to meet the needs of 1) mastery 2) autonomy and 3) purpose. Being financially free can certainly help with #2 but I don't think it inherently addresses the others.

throw0101a 6y ago

> You don't have freedom if you don't have a lot of money and you can't be 100% happy without freedom, at least in my experience, though I know opinions vary here. The amount of money one 'needs' depends on a lot of things, like cost of living in the area you happen to be in. While US$ 2.5M may not seem like a lot in the US, one can live like a king in may other areas. One doesn't even need to live in one particular place: people cruise around the world, often spending less than US$ 40K per year in total expenses if you don't get too fancy: * https://www.instagram.com/sailinguma/ https://www.instagram.com/sailinguma/ * https://www.youtube.com/sailinguma https://www.youtube.com/sailinguma Your nest egg would allow for several decades at that burn rate.

mastax 6y ago
Never thought I'd see Sailing Uma on HN. That's the dream, just waiting for starlink to have more coverage.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  See also SV Delos (with their 'giant' satellite dish), Sailing Ruby Rose, Sailing Ran, and the Wynns. (La vagabond has become too lifestyle-y for me; liked their earlier stuff on the Beneteau.)
pc86 6y ago
$2.5 million is enough for a six-figure salary in retirement, without touching the principle. Assuming there is post-tax money in there, you're going to have a much lower effective tax rate than you did while working. And if you're retired you probably have much lower expenses than you did before (most retired folks aren't making a big mortgage payment even if they're young). Unless you want to live an extravagant lifestyle (nothing wrong with that) $2.5 million is more than enough to retire in all but the most expensive US cities. And let's remember this is liquid, so real estate doesn't really count in that. One or two properties you're not living in could easily float that extravagant lifestyle for years.
WJW 6y ago
2.5m at 3% SWR (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/safe-withdrawal-rate-swr-method.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/safe-withdrawal-rate-sw...) would generate 75k per year thus resulting in a negative burn rate and last for infinite time (or at least until society no longer uses financial instruments). At the very least, it'd last much longer than "several" decades.

ajuc 6y ago

Well, I'm in my mid 30s and I only have a fraction of your net worth, but I've decided a few years ago that I'll be splitting my time +- 2 years of working, 9 gap months (spring-autumn), etc. I have a lot of health problems that will probably kill me before retirement one way or another so I don't feel like saving till I'm 45. It helps a lot that I work remotely in IT and live in Poland which is a very cheap country and I'm very low maintenance (for example my ideal vacations is biking and playing D&D on the internet which is all I did in 2019 ;) ). I have 0 interest in cars and drive 1997 Fiat Punto in which a replacement engine costs less than my daily salary :) I know because we've burned it once by accident :) I don't think money have to be the main focus, as long a your have a sustainable plan with big margin of safety. I could live for 10 years out of my savings easily, that's enough freedom for me if the alternative is delaying the freedom till I'm old. It would probably be a little different with kids, but we don't want to have kids with my wife, so that's not an issue.

pc86 6y ago
I'm also in my mid 30's and still have a negative net worth but retirement savings are growing strong (especially since February/March). Net worth is only part of the picture; if inheritance is not a priority then you can have a stable and secure future with a very small net worth, you just (probably) can't retire until it's cleaned up.
johnisgood 6y ago
I could become homeless any time. I have a client who pays me and I could live in Poland relatively nicely if it was steady. I should probably get more clients, but damn it is hard for me. I am actually thinking of moving to Poland if this guy keeps paying me, but I probably should go after I got 2 clients minimum.

piva00 6y ago

> I think while you don't have "FU money" it's important for money to be the main focus of your life. You don't have freedom if you don't have a lot of money and you can't be 100% happy without freedom, at least in my experience, though I know opinions vary here. The thing is that not everyone can or will achieve that. If we know that, what's the main drive for others to do that? We don't live in a system where this is possible, I'm glad you've achieved it but preaching this "money should be the main focus of your life until you have FU money" will just make a lot of people frustrated and unfulfilled. So why should that be the main goal of anyone's life when there is so much more to life than that? Are we all slaves to money then? Are our lives only meant to be lived after we are free from the shackles of money? I really don't like that perspective.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
That would be an extremely sad thing for me at least. Knowing that I would have no way to become truly free. Free as in I don't owe anyone my time. Maybe others can accept it or are forced to accept it. I just can't. But people of course are different. Currently I just can't wait to reach that state. Sometimes I'm counting days even. I could never be happy/relaxed as long as I am forced to work, or forced to work under someone. With regular work, I think I am saving around 70% of my total compensation, but I am also finding ways to do side-hustles. Hopefully I can hit something that will help me reach passive income or otherwise I will be dependant on my career compensation. So as long as I haven't achieved that state I will keep trying and spend most of my time trying to reach this state.
- floor2 6y ago
  If you had millions of dollars, you'd still need to brush your teeth. And sleep and eat and shower and use the toilet. Would those things mean you're not truly free? You'll always be 'forced to work' even if that work is just keeping your body alive and well. Perhaps it would be worth trying to find happiness now, rather than hoping it's hidden behind the next achievement.
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago

pc86 6y ago

I'm surprised it took you until $2.5 million to see diminishing marginal utility.

blkknightarms 6y ago

That's not nearly enough to retire long-term somewhere like the Bay Area or NYC. I did the math for Palo Alto, and it turns out someone needs an additional 130% of real estate worth to afford the taxes into their golden years.