3 ms·

So the problem with all those examples is that they are just incremental changes to an existing lifestyle. The hypothetical person in your scenario is still go

So the problem with all those examples is that they are just incremental changes to an existing lifestyle. The hypothetical person in your scenario is still going to retire, just a few years later. They’ll still send their kids to college, just with a few more loans (or maybe not because having more savings results in less financial aid). They’ll still go on vacations, just slightly less nice one. Or they’ll go on the nicer vacation, just less often. Etc etc etc. What it does not do is change your life qualitatively. You’re not going to be routinely flying on private jets or hiring a butler. Your ability to affect politics is still mainly limited to the ballot box. You’re still upper middle class. Just half a step ahead of the Joneses.

dpark 5y ago
The person in this hypothetical can choose if they want the lifestyle inflation or to save an extra $50k/year for retirement. Someone socking away $65k/year who suddenly starts socking away an extra $50k/year can retire a lot earlier. That can absolutely be life changing. Someone who starts getting paid an extra $100k might also choose to have their spouse quit their job. An extra $100k is likely enough to offset a partner’s income (and a relatively high one at that). This is also a life changing event. > What it does not do is change your life qualitatively. You’re not going to be routinely flying on private jets or hiring a butler. Your ability to affect politics is still mainly limited to the ballot box. This is a very false dichotomy. There is a whole range of quality of life changes that happen before “private jet and election fraud” money. Anything over “not starving and can afford a place to live” is “incremental”.