4 ms·

You can always lower your standard of living, sure. But that's a different conversation IMO. I guess technically that's a choice, but it's so bad in the long t

You can always lower your standard of living, sure. But that's a different conversation IMO. I guess technically that's a choice, but it's so bad in the long term I personally can't consider it valid.

neogodless 3y ago
Can you elaborate? As I've never raised my standard of living to spending over $100K / year, I don't exactly know what I'm missing. I think more to your point, yes there is a choice - to make $500K at a "big bad tech company" and then spend like there's no tomorrow on things that you feel are worth spending all that money on, hoping that it makes up for the 40 hours you spend working (and maybe hating?) Or you enjoy your 40 hour job, make less, spend less. But spending money doesn't have a direct and equal correlation with life satisfaction. I spend about $65K / year (for two people, no kids), and I feel like I have an amazing life, and spending a bunch more money would, at best, have small incremental returns on life satisfaction.
- Draiken 3y ago
  Of course! I have also never raised my spending to anything close to that. Nor I have the choice of making $500k (I wish). When I mention standard of living I don't mean spending like crazy. I mean not having to constantly worry that if you lose your job you can't make your mortgage in a few months. I save around 50% of my salary and I'd save even more if I didn't have a kid and wasn't the sole provider in my home right now. Not because I wouldn't love to be living like a king, but because for me that's the only option I have to afford a life long term. What if I die? What if I get hurt and can't work anymore? What if me or my wife gets sick and we can't treat it with the limited free healthcare we have access to? Even barring that. I absolutely hate that I have to give away the prime hours of my day to ensure me and my family can simply survive. I don't want to do that forever. I'd much rather use all I know to build software that actually makes a difference. Read more, experience life more. Travel at least once in my life. Enjoy life while I'm not declining physically and mentally. I could definitely earn less and live a less stressful life in a better company if I wanted to. But that's the kind of decision that will most likely come back to haunt me and my family in the long term. Maybe I get very lucky and none of those things happen, and all the time I suffered through those soulless jobs was not needed. But in my view that's a risk I'm willing to take. To your point, if you are talking about simply getting all that extra money and spend it all without a care, I agree. That's a choice but one I don't have the same sympathy for.
sokoloff 3y ago
Living below your means (whatever that is) is a very good thing, not a bad thing. Being stuck on an expenses ~= income treadmill is what sucks.
- Draiken 3y ago
  Living below your means is separated from your standard of living. In a better world everyone should be able to live well without having to sacrifice as much. Somehow we've convinced ourselves that it's always the individual's fault when they have to live with a worse standard of living to maybe retire one day.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    It’s the individual’s wise choice (not fault) when they do that, IMO.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      I agree with you regarding the means of living but that's not what I said. Accepting that you will have to work until you die is lowering your standard of living. So is accepting that any emergency can bankrupt you or that you will never be able to travel, and so on. For some reason people are conflating standards of living with irresponsible spending.

neogodless 3y ago

Can you elaborate? As I've never raised my standard of living to spending over $100K / year, I don't exactly know what I'm missing. I think more to your point, yes there is a choice - to make $500K at a "big bad tech company" and then spend like there's no tomorrow on things that you feel are worth spending all that money on, hoping that it makes up for the 40 hours you spend working (and maybe hating?) Or you enjoy your 40 hour job, make less, spend less. But spending money doesn't have a direct and equal correlation with life satisfaction. I spend about $65K / year (for two people, no kids), and I feel like I have an amazing life, and spending a bunch more money would, at best, have small incremental returns on life satisfaction.

Draiken 3y ago
Of course! I have also never raised my spending to anything close to that. Nor I have the choice of making $500k (I wish). When I mention standard of living I don't mean spending like crazy. I mean not having to constantly worry that if you lose your job you can't make your mortgage in a few months. I save around 50% of my salary and I'd save even more if I didn't have a kid and wasn't the sole provider in my home right now. Not because I wouldn't love to be living like a king, but because for me that's the only option I have to afford a life long term. What if I die? What if I get hurt and can't work anymore? What if me or my wife gets sick and we can't treat it with the limited free healthcare we have access to? Even barring that. I absolutely hate that I have to give away the prime hours of my day to ensure me and my family can simply survive. I don't want to do that forever. I'd much rather use all I know to build software that actually makes a difference. Read more, experience life more. Travel at least once in my life. Enjoy life while I'm not declining physically and mentally. I could definitely earn less and live a less stressful life in a better company if I wanted to. But that's the kind of decision that will most likely come back to haunt me and my family in the long term. Maybe I get very lucky and none of those things happen, and all the time I suffered through those soulless jobs was not needed. But in my view that's a risk I'm willing to take. To your point, if you are talking about simply getting all that extra money and spend it all without a care, I agree. That's a choice but one I don't have the same sympathy for.

sokoloff 3y ago

Living below your means (whatever that is) is a very good thing, not a bad thing. Being stuck on an expenses ~= income treadmill is what sucks.

Draiken 3y ago
Living below your means is separated from your standard of living. In a better world everyone should be able to live well without having to sacrifice as much. Somehow we've convinced ourselves that it's always the individual's fault when they have to live with a worse standard of living to maybe retire one day.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It’s the individual’s wise choice (not fault) when they do that, IMO.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    I agree with you regarding the means of living but that's not what I said. Accepting that you will have to work until you die is lowering your standard of living. So is accepting that any emergency can bankrupt you or that you will never be able to travel, and so on. For some reason people are conflating standards of living with irresponsible spending.