4 ms·

It's not really that substantial if you're making 170k/year, which isn't an insane salary for a software engineer in the US.

topaz0 4y ago
The money is just as substantial, you just don't feel it as much.
- noirbot 4y ago
  Sure, but it's a sliding scale. $1 is a substantial amount to many people, but it's unhealthy for me to feel guilty spending a dollar of groceries. It's only really healthy to consider things in relation to what you can afford in terms of money, time, and physical ability.
  - topaz0 4y ago
    I understand (and understood) what you are getting at. But if you don't stop and think about what that same (substantial) money might mean to a person in a different position in society, that is pretty solipsistic.
biztos 4y ago
It’s substantial enough, I could surely think of something costing $850 that I’d rather have than half these, if we take the other half to be “essential.” My point is that it’s super easy to end up with this kind of expense, or much more, without subscribing to “much.”
- Handytinge 4y ago
  > It’s substantial enough, I could surely think of something costing $850 that I’d rather have than half these, if we take the other half to be “essential.” You're look at it as a zero sum game though. The GP may be able to afford all of these and spend $850 on the latest widget too, all without blinking.
- noirbot 4y ago
  Oh sure, and that's the entire point of the article. But even if I look at their MLB subscription and go "I can come up with 10 things I'd rather spend that money on" that's a personal thing of what I like vs. what they like. Who knows what things the author isn't spending money on that you or I are spending money on that they'd think is wasteful of us? In general, I find it silly to look at anyone else's situation, and outside of extreme situations, try to take a "you're wrong and I know better than you about how your life would be better if you spent your money differently." position.

topaz0 4y ago

The money is just as substantial, you just don't feel it as much.

noirbot 4y ago
Sure, but it's a sliding scale. $1 is a substantial amount to many people, but it's unhealthy for me to feel guilty spending a dollar of groceries. It's only really healthy to consider things in relation to what you can afford in terms of money, time, and physical ability.
- topaz0 4y ago
  I understand (and understood) what you are getting at. But if you don't stop and think about what that same (substantial) money might mean to a person in a different position in society, that is pretty solipsistic.

biztos 4y ago

It’s substantial enough, I could surely think of something costing $850 that I’d rather have than half these, if we take the other half to be “essential.” My point is that it’s super easy to end up with this kind of expense, or much more, without subscribing to “much.”

Handytinge 4y ago
> It’s substantial enough, I could surely think of something costing $850 that I’d rather have than half these, if we take the other half to be “essential.” You're look at it as a zero sum game though. The GP may be able to afford all of these and spend $850 on the latest widget too, all without blinking.
noirbot 4y ago
Oh sure, and that's the entire point of the article. But even if I look at their MLB subscription and go "I can come up with 10 things I'd rather spend that money on" that's a personal thing of what I like vs. what they like. Who knows what things the author isn't spending money on that you or I are spending money on that they'd think is wasteful of us? In general, I find it silly to look at anyone else's situation, and outside of extreme situations, try to take a "you're wrong and I know better than you about how your life would be better if you spent your money differently." position.