5 ms·

I don't really have any dog in this fight, but I found this comment completely bizarre: > At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to

by blahedo 12y ago

I don't really have any dog in this fight, but I found this comment completely bizarre: > At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a day job. For real? $70K income is pretty darn good pay and more than enough to support a family even if nobody else is working outside the home. In the US the median household income is only $53K. I can't decide if this misstep weakens the author's actual argument or not, but either way it simply drips with elitism and privilege and probably serves to undermine the presentation.

bsimpson 12y ago
I think he picked 100k because it makes the math easy, but there's a big difference between the cost of living in (for instance) San Francisco and Nashville. What I pay to rent a room in San Francisco could pay my cousin's mortgage in TN 3 times over. In SF, $70K is less than new grads make. I can definitely see someone having the conversation about taking a "real" job for a 50% increase in pay.
s73v3r 12y ago
Whether that $70k is enough to support a family largely depends on where you live. Midwest? Yeah, it's great. San Francisco or NYC? Not really. Further, given that we're software developers, the median income for everyone in the nation is completely irrelevant. It only matters what the median income for software developers is.
- blahedo 12y ago
  I disagree. It only matters what you're willing to be happy with, and what is "enough". The fact that literally millions of families live on way less than that amount is, at least, a proof-of-concept of the sufficiency of the money. As for the actual number: San Francisco and New York may be expensive, but median household income is still only in the 60-80K range [0][1], and with fully half the population living on less than the median, I'm going to stand by my claim that $70K is possible to support a family on, even before considering the earning potential of the spouse who wants more money coming in. [0] http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-francisco/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-francisco... [1] http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/
ctdonath 12y ago
Perversely, I'll side with the albeit snidely described "elitism" angle. Most people in a position to actually write a mobile device app which has a shot at making real money have probably come from a social strata demanding a higher standard of living. A university degree or two, more than a few Apple products and other non-trailing-edge technologies, a voracious appetite for information & tools, and a vehicle which they're not spending copious time personally maintaining (to mention a few). While I'll usually argue fiercely that one can live well & productively on a pittance, normalcy is someone making a net $70K probably will be looking for at least a secondary occupation. And note that the parent post referred to net income, implying a >$100K gross. Your retort indicates a gross $70K or $53K income. Let's keep the comparisons on par.
clarky07 12y ago
probably just used those for easy math, or perhaps if you are in NY of SF then it's not "great" and certainly below market rates. Just because you can live on it, doesn't mean you should if the 9-5 will pay you twice that to do the same type of work. all that being said, just lower the numbers a bit and the point is pretty good. 60k gross turns into 42k net. At some point there is a line where that 30% is the difference between being viable and not.

by blahedo 12y ago

bsimpson 12y ago

I think he picked 100k because it makes the math easy, but there's a big difference between the cost of living in (for instance) San Francisco and Nashville. What I pay to rent a room in San Francisco could pay my cousin's mortgage in TN 3 times over. In SF, $70K is less than new grads make. I can definitely see someone having the conversation about taking a "real" job for a 50% increase in pay.

s73v3r 12y ago

Whether that $70k is enough to support a family largely depends on where you live. Midwest? Yeah, it's great. San Francisco or NYC? Not really. Further, given that we're software developers, the median income for everyone in the nation is completely irrelevant. It only matters what the median income for software developers is.

blahedo 12y ago
I disagree. It only matters what you're willing to be happy with, and what is "enough". The fact that literally millions of families live on way less than that amount is, at least, a proof-of-concept of the sufficiency of the money. As for the actual number: San Francisco and New York may be expensive, but median household income is still only in the 60-80K range [0][1], and with fully half the population living on less than the median, I'm going to stand by my claim that $70K is possible to support a family on, even before considering the earning potential of the spouse who wants more money coming in. [0] http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-francisco/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-francisco... [1] http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/

ctdonath 12y ago

Perversely, I'll side with the albeit snidely described "elitism" angle. Most people in a position to actually write a mobile device app which has a shot at making real money have probably come from a social strata demanding a higher standard of living. A university degree or two, more than a few Apple products and other non-trailing-edge technologies, a voracious appetite for information & tools, and a vehicle which they're not spending copious time personally maintaining (to mention a few). While I'll usually argue fiercely that one can live well & productively on a pittance, normalcy is someone making a net $70K probably will be looking for at least a secondary occupation. And note that the parent post referred to net income, implying a >$100K gross. Your retort indicates a gross $70K or $53K income. Let's keep the comparisons on par.

clarky07 12y ago

probably just used those for easy math, or perhaps if you are in NY of SF then it's not "great" and certainly below market rates. Just because you can live on it, doesn't mean you should if the 9-5 will pay you twice that to do the same type of work. all that being said, just lower the numbers a bit and the point is pretty good. 60k gross turns into 42k net. At some point there is a line where that 30% is the difference between being viable and not.