4 ms·

FTA: > HENRYs [High Earners, Not Rich Yet] typically fall victim to lifestyle creep, when one increases one's standard of living to match a rise in discretiona

FTA: > HENRYs [High Earners, Not Rich Yet] typically fall victim to lifestyle creep, when one increases one's standard of living to match a rise in discretionary income. They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle that leaves them living paycheck to paycheck. That kind of problem can't be solved with more money. It has to be solved with a behavior change.

triceratops 5y ago
> They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income? > That kind of problem can't be solved with more money Who's talking about "more money"? > solved with a behavior change. Or a zoning change? Or changes to property taxes?
- bhaak 5y ago
  >> They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle > Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income? You left out the rest of the quote: "that leaves them living paycheck to paycheck." If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you are living above your means. You have no financial room to adjust if something unexpected happens. That's a problem. A completely unnecessary one as you would have enough leeway if you reduced your cost basis. People that earn much less usually don't have that possibility.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > If you're living paycheck to paycheck Sure. But if regulations force prices of essentials (like housing) up enough to take most of your paycheck, how much is it down to personal responsibility? And how much to regulations beating down regular workers?
    - bhupy 5y ago
      Why can't it be both? Yes, housing regulations are pretty much the root cause of all of the Bay Area's problems (IMO). But at the same time, people making $100k+ aren't helpless, they have all the agency and means to live within their means. This includes making the decision to live with roommates, or perhaps even leaving the Bay Area for saner pasteurs like other commenters in this thread. Earlier, you said the following: "Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income?", and I'd like to dig into that a little more. It's not really accurate to compare Bay Area's income with the national median without also considering how the cost of living compares with the national median also. Bay Area new grads are certainly high earners relative to people in Iowa, but they're decidedly middle class relative to their peers in the Bay Area. If you want a proper apples-to-apples comparison of how "HENRYs" ought to live their lives, you need to compare them with people in other parts of America that are also middle class relative to their local peers. Either that, or you have to compare their income to the median income in the Bay Area, which I believe is around $96k. So if you're earning $100k, you're not earning 1.5x the median, you're at the median, and should therefore spend like you're in the median.

triceratops 5y ago

> They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income? > That kind of problem can't be solved with more money Who's talking about "more money"? > solved with a behavior change. Or a zoning change? Or changes to property taxes?

bhaak 5y ago
>> They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle > Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income? You left out the rest of the quote: "that leaves them living paycheck to paycheck." If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you are living above your means. You have no financial room to adjust if something unexpected happens. That's a problem. A completely unnecessary one as you would have enough leeway if you reduced your cost basis. People that earn much less usually don't have that possibility.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > If you're living paycheck to paycheck Sure. But if regulations force prices of essentials (like housing) up enough to take most of your paycheck, how much is it down to personal responsibility? And how much to regulations beating down regular workers?
  - bhupy 5y ago
    Why can't it be both? Yes, housing regulations are pretty much the root cause of all of the Bay Area's problems (IMO). But at the same time, people making $100k+ aren't helpless, they have all the agency and means to live within their means. This includes making the decision to live with roommates, or perhaps even leaving the Bay Area for saner pasteurs like other commenters in this thread. Earlier, you said the following: "Is that so crazy if you're making 1.5x the national median income?", and I'd like to dig into that a little more. It's not really accurate to compare Bay Area's income with the national median without also considering how the cost of living compares with the national median also. Bay Area new grads are certainly high earners relative to people in Iowa, but they're decidedly middle class relative to their peers in the Bay Area. If you want a proper apples-to-apples comparison of how "HENRYs" ought to live their lives, you need to compare them with people in other parts of America that are also middle class relative to their local peers. Either that, or you have to compare their income to the median income in the Bay Area, which I believe is around $96k. So if you're earning $100k, you're not earning 1.5x the median, you're at the median, and should therefore spend like you're in the median.