4 ms·

> yeah, he probably has enough to just quit I bet most peope in the world would retire after only one year of his base salary ($3M in 2021). edit: not conside

• rmbyrro 5y ago
  With current life expectancy and inflation prospects, one would need to live quite modestly or invest these 3M very wisely to retire on such a small amount.
  • tromp 5y ago
    In many parts of the world you can live luxuriously for decades with $3M in assets. It feels wrong to call what 99% of the world population can never expect to save, a "small amount".
  • berdario 5y ago
    Life expectancy has been decreasing, and you'd keep those 3M invested (bond if not stocks) to fend off inflation. 3M is absolutely a mind-boggling amount. Ok, housing in San Francisco will eat most of that, but the vast majority of people in the world retire on way less than that
    • kortilla 5y ago
      > but the vast majority of people in the world retire on way less than that You’re missing something big here. Most people who retire on way less than that are doing so at retirement age. For example, let’s assume death at 78. The money required to retire at 30 needs to last 48 years. The money required to retire at 65 only needs to last 13 years. And that’s not even taking into account that social security is only available at normal retirement age and you wouldn’t be contributing to it by retiring early. $3 million is not going to be a secure retirement. It’s going to be very modest living subject to ruin by either inflation (if you go the bond route) or depressions (if you go the stock route).
      • onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
        By historical averages for the S&P for the last 100 years - you could draw down AT LEAST $10k per month indefinitely. If you can't get by on that (2x median income in US, top 10% income in the US, top 1% in the world)... You have problems.
        • kortilla 5y ago
          10k a month won’t be much in 50 years. You forgot to account for inflation.
        • sokoloff 5y ago
          Two points: In the context of the upthread wager, as a California employee, you’d be left with just under $1.5M if you worked for one year and paid your taxes. No way does that provide $10K/month for possibly 70 years. Even if you somehow got it entirely tax-free and had no living expenses such that you could start with a $3M balance after a year of work, I’d wager that the vast majority of people would choose to work at least 2 years and many would choose to work 4 or 5 years and that only a small minority of them would quit after 1 year. Wouldn’t you rather work 2 years and live on $20K/mo rather than just 1 and live on $10K/mo?
  • pjerem 5y ago
    In most of the world, 3M is enough to buy a dozen of student flats which you can easily live just from the rent.
  • freyr 5y ago
    Or just move out of the Bay Area/NYC/your country’s equivalent overpriced metro, and live very comfortably. Of course it works better if your closer to Tim’s age than in your 20s or 30s.
  • markdown 5y ago
    LOL, #firstworldproblems
  • dlp211 5y ago
    $3MM would allow you to easily live on 80k/yr, adjusted for inflation, for the rest of your life. And that's being conservative.
    • brianwawok 5y ago
      Right. Which is below the living standard most US tech workers have.
      • adrianN 5y ago
        Most tech workers spend more than 80k a year? Spend, not earn? Are you serious?
        • kthejoker2 5y ago
          People arguing with you are not serious. Excluding NYC and Silicon Valley, definitely easy to spend $40-50k depending on where you live ... a lot harder to spend the rest ...
        • sidlls 5y ago
          Most tech workers in the Bay Area spend $80k/year on housing and commuting expenses, easily. Rents of $5k/mo and mortgage payments (piti) of $7k or more can easily account for almost all of that.
          • adrianN 5y ago
            The bay area is a huge outlier when you talk about "most US tech workers"
            • brianwawok 5y ago
              Right. The average tech worker family income in the US is well past 50k. Looking at how poor the savings rate is, I would suspect they are spending a lot more than 80k.
        • 5y ago
  • datavirtue 5y ago
    I could retire on $300k. But I live in Ohio and have nothing to prove.
    • onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
      Sure - if you want to live below the poverty level. I mean, some people live below the poverty level just fine. Power to you if you can. But $300k will only allow you to indefinitely draw down $12k per year / $1k per month. Considering health insurance is mandatory and costs $4k+ per year - that's not leaving you much.
      • achow 5y ago
        Because of inflation, the value of $1K in a decade or so will be way less.
        • onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
          The $1k drawdown adjusts for inflation.
      • datavirtue 5y ago
        This is all true if you have no imagination. I have also lived below poverty level so I know how to do it without being worried and stressed out. Having your entire day to do what you want is priceless. I would be living out of a garden, so no need for health insurance. When you have your time to yourself you can pursue helping people, which builds community and unquantifiable opportunity and prosperiry around you. I can see how most people these days would have no faith in that since each family lives in a bubble where they don't need or know anyone else because they have enough money to pay through the nose for everything. They get no benefit from the community in that case. Besides. Having $300k I could invest most of it and buy half a mountain with a decent house and a barn here.
• akomtu 5y ago
  Those who would retire with $3M dont have the drive, ability and desire to run Apple.