4 ms·

Love the poster's ingenuity and hate his attitude, and the antiwork subreeddit. Attitude: $90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this perso

Love the poster's ingenuity and hate his attitude, and the antiwork subreeddit. Attitude: $90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this person's retirement, particularly if they encounter major expenses. He should be spending his new free time either developing a side-hustle, a business, or delivering additional value for his employer for which he must insist on additional compensation. I used to be well aware of evidence & case management systems and this person is one decision away from existing software making his perceived job less relevant. Antiwork: I entered the workforce during a deep recession, and I was a recruiter for infoTech during another recession. I've traveled extensively overseas for work. It will be an employers market eventually, perhaps soon, and the antiwork crowd is going to meet reality head-on when it happens. Nothing wrong with ditching bad employers & developing side-hustles. There is something wrong with demonizing work. Part (by no means all) of the growth one sees abroad is due to acceptance and often positive attitudes about work, with less emphasis on "fairness". Life isn't even close to fair and some societies and people understand how to work with that better than others do. Let the downvoting and flaming begin (sadly).

Miner49er 5y ago
HN really lives in a some sort of wealthy bubble. $90k is plenty of money to save for retirement in most of the country. If it's not, then the majority of people in the US will never be able to retire.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  Yeah, for reference the median household income in the US is under $70k. Of course cost of living depends a lot on the locality, but 90k as a single person goes pretty far anywhere other than the Bay Area, NYC, or a few other expensive hubs.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  OP doesn't realize that 87% of the US population (being one of the richest in the world) makes less than $90k. That means that by his view 9 persons out of 10 won't be able to retire. Which I actually believe is true. The irony of admitting this while at the same time praising this system with statements like >Part (by no means all) of the growth one sees abroad is due to acceptance and often positive attitudes about work, with less emphasis on "fairness". What kind of growth are we seeing? Why should we have a positive attitude about work, when it's just a mean of transfering wealth upwards?
  - mech987 5y ago
    Why is work just a means of transferring wealth upwards?
    - pietrovismara 5y ago
      That's what it has become in an economic system that failed at its only task, ensuring proper distribution of resources. Most jobs serve only the purpose of making a restricted group of people richer, while stealing the workers' time on earth and often worsening society. Edit: if you think that's not true, you live in a bubble. Try some of the jobs the majority of the population has to put up with, then we can talk again.
- mbg721 5y ago
  It's not enough to save for retirement in the US, and that "majority will never be able to retire" is a reality in any of the 50 states. We just haven't had it hit the fan yet. Edit: I read that as $90k total, to be dispensed over the remaining years. I agree that $90k per year indeed ought to be plenty.
  - bigyellow 5y ago
    Real inflation is like 20% in the US; none of us are retiring any time soon.
StephenSmith 5y ago
You're right, but inflation continues to outpace wages, so without some, albeit extreme, push from the workers' side, this will continue to get worse.
serverholic 5y ago
Nobody asks to be born and society is setup to extract as much as possible from you until you die. Fuck society, fuck humanity, fuck productivity, and fuck work. It can all burn for all I care. I'm saving as much money as I can to escape wage slavery then just coasting the rest of my life without living another productive second.
- pietrovismara 5y ago
  > I'm saving as much money as I can to escape wage slavery then just coasting the rest of my life without living another productive second. In the meantime, don't forget to steal as much as you can (https://repeaterbooks.com/product/steal-as-much-as-you-can-how-to-win-the-culture-wars-in-an-age-of-austerity/ https://repeaterbooks.com/product/steal-as-much-as-you-can-h...).
leetcrew 5y ago
> $90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money what? $90k is plenty for a frugal person to have a reasonable retirement. they're not gonna be able to do it at 35, but mid fifties is very viable.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
>$90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this person's retirement uhhh... what? that's almost double the average US salary >Life isn't even close to fair and some societies and people understand how to work with that better than others do. "Life isn't fair" is not an argument against striving for fairness. My understanding of the antiwork people is that they think they're being more productive than what they're being paid for, and often being treated poorly along the way. There's data backing that up, and it doesn't seem ridiculous to try and recapture some of that.
Ostrogodsky 5y ago
Meh,plenty of deluded kids there, but the core idea is basically true. Nobody is arguing against work per se (most healthy humans like to do stuff), they are arguing about the XXI century version of soulless indentured service many jobs are. Productivity exploded in the last 50 years and yet the people are still running the same thread-mill for even less benefits so I dont blame anybody who gives the middle-finger to the corporate world and try to find an alternative.
giantg2 5y ago
"$90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this person's retirement, particularly if they encounter major expenses." This simply isn't true in most areas. You can live a modest lifestyle and have a very good chance of retirement at a "normal" retirement age (60-65). The median US software dev makes about $110k and is one of the more highly compensated jobs. I make about the same as the poster, and I'm actually in decent shape for retirement, even with a family. On the second point I sort of agree. Why not take a second job and make more?
MSFT_Edging 5y ago
The side-hustle culture is a cancer. > delivering additional value for his employer for which he must insist on additional compensation Good luck with that. /r/antiwork is a societal response to this exact sentiment. "Oh make a decent amount more than the national average and still cant afford to retire? Simple, monetize what little free time you have left!" No, the requirement for a side-hustle is due to the decades of upper management and C-levels taking advantage of employees and leading the stagnation of wages. The solution to a systemic issue is a systemic solution. The personal responsibility solutions are just a distraction. Good on the op for getting back some of his time.
- mbg721 5y ago
  A traditional side-hustle wouldn't be for the same employer (or any at all).
vsareto 5y ago
>and the antiwork subreddit I thought r/antiwork was really about calling out abusive employers and guiding us to better work/life relationship, but it is actually against all work in any form. Meaning, if your house catches fire, it's up to you to put it out - they don't want anyone employed as professional firefighters who might actually know WTF they're doing. Medical problems? Fix it yourself. There's no paramedics to respond, no surgeons to fix you, no pharmacists for drugs, no nurses/techs for recovery. If it was a movement about fixing worker conditions (a submarine advertisement for unions, if you will), it'd actually be a good movement. But right now, it's positioning itself as just an angry outcry forum that apparently wants the planet to be ruled by anarchy and extreme independence. What a waste of potential. If you don't believe me, try asking them what the good industries are that have good work/life balance. The answers you'll get boil down to "there are no good jobs at all".
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  I think it's a movement about fixing work conditions and somewhat aggressive towards corporations and their practices. Taking it to an extreme may be a push to kill off the movement.
anotherman554 5y ago
The amount you need in retirement is roughly proportional to how much you spend while working, so that if you save 15% of your gross salary throughout your career and invest it in stock, you should be able to retire by 65 and maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement to what you lived while working. The salary is not what matters, it is the savings rate.
cityofdelusion 5y ago
$90,000 per year is more than enough to max your 401k, an IRA, and live anywhere that isn't a coastal city.

Miner49er 5y ago

HN really lives in a some sort of wealthy bubble. $90k is plenty of money to save for retirement in most of the country. If it's not, then the majority of people in the US will never be able to retire.

pseudo0 5y ago
Yeah, for reference the median household income in the US is under $70k. Of course cost of living depends a lot on the locality, but 90k as a single person goes pretty far anywhere other than the Bay Area, NYC, or a few other expensive hubs.
pietrovismara 5y ago
OP doesn't realize that 87% of the US population (being one of the richest in the world) makes less than $90k. That means that by his view 9 persons out of 10 won't be able to retire. Which I actually believe is true. The irony of admitting this while at the same time praising this system with statements like >Part (by no means all) of the growth one sees abroad is due to acceptance and often positive attitudes about work, with less emphasis on "fairness". What kind of growth are we seeing? Why should we have a positive attitude about work, when it's just a mean of transfering wealth upwards?
- mech987 5y ago
  Why is work just a means of transferring wealth upwards?
  - pietrovismara 5y ago
    That's what it has become in an economic system that failed at its only task, ensuring proper distribution of resources. Most jobs serve only the purpose of making a restricted group of people richer, while stealing the workers' time on earth and often worsening society. Edit: if you think that's not true, you live in a bubble. Try some of the jobs the majority of the population has to put up with, then we can talk again.
mbg721 5y ago
It's not enough to save for retirement in the US, and that "majority will never be able to retire" is a reality in any of the 50 states. We just haven't had it hit the fan yet. Edit: I read that as $90k total, to be dispensed over the remaining years. I agree that $90k per year indeed ought to be plenty.
- bigyellow 5y ago
  Real inflation is like 20% in the US; none of us are retiring any time soon.

StephenSmith 5y ago

You're right, but inflation continues to outpace wages, so without some, albeit extreme, push from the workers' side, this will continue to get worse.

serverholic 5y ago

Nobody asks to be born and society is setup to extract as much as possible from you until you die. Fuck society, fuck humanity, fuck productivity, and fuck work. It can all burn for all I care. I'm saving as much money as I can to escape wage slavery then just coasting the rest of my life without living another productive second.

pietrovismara 5y ago
> I'm saving as much money as I can to escape wage slavery then just coasting the rest of my life without living another productive second. In the meantime, don't forget to steal as much as you can (https://repeaterbooks.com/product/steal-as-much-as-you-can-how-to-win-the-culture-wars-in-an-age-of-austerity/ https://repeaterbooks.com/product/steal-as-much-as-you-can-h...).

leetcrew 5y ago

> $90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money what? $90k is plenty for a frugal person to have a reasonable retirement. they're not gonna be able to do it at 35, but mid fifties is very viable.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

>$90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this person's retirement uhhh... what? that's almost double the average US salary >Life isn't even close to fair and some societies and people understand how to work with that better than others do. "Life isn't fair" is not an argument against striving for fairness. My understanding of the antiwork people is that they think they're being more productive than what they're being paid for, and often being treated poorly along the way. There's data backing that up, and it doesn't seem ridiculous to try and recapture some of that.

Ostrogodsky 5y ago

Meh,plenty of deluded kids there, but the core idea is basically true. Nobody is arguing against work per se (most healthy humans like to do stuff), they are arguing about the XXI century version of soulless indentured service many jobs are. Productivity exploded in the last 50 years and yet the people are still running the same thread-mill for even less benefits so I dont blame anybody who gives the middle-finger to the corporate world and try to find an alternative.

giantg2 5y ago

"$90,000 per year isn't likely to generate enough money for this person's retirement, particularly if they encounter major expenses." This simply isn't true in most areas. You can live a modest lifestyle and have a very good chance of retirement at a "normal" retirement age (60-65). The median US software dev makes about $110k and is one of the more highly compensated jobs. I make about the same as the poster, and I'm actually in decent shape for retirement, even with a family. On the second point I sort of agree. Why not take a second job and make more?

MSFT_Edging 5y ago

The side-hustle culture is a cancer. > delivering additional value for his employer for which he must insist on additional compensation Good luck with that. /r/antiwork is a societal response to this exact sentiment. "Oh make a decent amount more than the national average and still cant afford to retire? Simple, monetize what little free time you have left!" No, the requirement for a side-hustle is due to the decades of upper management and C-levels taking advantage of employees and leading the stagnation of wages. The solution to a systemic issue is a systemic solution. The personal responsibility solutions are just a distraction. Good on the op for getting back some of his time.

mbg721 5y ago
A traditional side-hustle wouldn't be for the same employer (or any at all).

vsareto 5y ago

>and the antiwork subreddit I thought r/antiwork was really about calling out abusive employers and guiding us to better work/life relationship, but it is actually against all work in any form. Meaning, if your house catches fire, it's up to you to put it out - they don't want anyone employed as professional firefighters who might actually know WTF they're doing. Medical problems? Fix it yourself. There's no paramedics to respond, no surgeons to fix you, no pharmacists for drugs, no nurses/techs for recovery. If it was a movement about fixing worker conditions (a submarine advertisement for unions, if you will), it'd actually be a good movement. But right now, it's positioning itself as just an angry outcry forum that apparently wants the planet to be ruled by anarchy and extreme independence. What a waste of potential. If you don't believe me, try asking them what the good industries are that have good work/life balance. The answers you'll get boil down to "there are no good jobs at all".

onemoresoop 5y ago
I think it's a movement about fixing work conditions and somewhat aggressive towards corporations and their practices. Taking it to an extreme may be a push to kill off the movement.

anotherman554 5y ago

The amount you need in retirement is roughly proportional to how much you spend while working, so that if you save 15% of your gross salary throughout your career and invest it in stock, you should be able to retire by 65 and maintain a similar lifestyle in retirement to what you lived while working. The salary is not what matters, it is the savings rate.

cityofdelusion 5y ago

$90,000 per year is more than enough to max your 401k, an IRA, and live anywhere that isn't a coastal city.