4 ms·

I see no one else has mentioned another, even more obvious solution. Retire. With the sky-high salaries it is possible to earn as a software engineer, it shoul

I see no one else has mentioned another, even more obvious solution. Retire. With the sky-high salaries it is possible to earn as a software engineer, it should be straightforward (not easy, but still straightforward nonetheless), to save enough to retire at the age of 40. After which, you can spend your remaining time as you see fit, working on personal projects or any other hobby that suits your fancy. This is the route I am taking.

jmspring 12y ago
It is an interesting option if you have the foresight. If you are in your twenties, someone in their 40s can teach you a thing or two. If you plan on living the life of a hermit workaholic, certainly reasonable with your life circumstances. If you have a family, want to travel, or want to buy instead of rent, assuming the Bay Area, very idealistic.
- phamilton 12y ago
  Or buy now and sell in 15 years or so. Move to Boise Idaho. 15 years of equity (ignoring appreciation) means you can buy a house twice the size outright.
  - jmspring 12y ago
    Bay Area real estate has picked up, but timing 15 years to sell? Doesn't always work out as well as it could if things have cratered. There have been about three significant real estate collapses in the Bay Area in the last 20-30 years. Some areas hold up better than others, but, say mountain view, a 20-something at his/her first/second job, unless has other means, isn't going to pick up property easily to hold for 15 years. Affordable areas in a boom? Those most likely to take a serious crap in a downturn.
    - phamilton 12y ago
      15 years isn't exact. Boom bust cycle is 5 years or so. If the market is down in 15 years, then just wait it out. I'm not even including appreciation in the calculations.
      - jmspring 12y ago
        True, and not everyone will want to dig up and move to Idaho. Established roots, friends, etc. There is more to "home" than just the walls in which you sleep.
- brianwawok 12y ago
  Well that is why those of us who sit down and do the math DON'T live in the bay area. The 10% salary bump is not worth the 400% housing price bump.
siberianbear 12y ago
It's possible. I did it. I am 43 and I retired when I was 40. I lived frugally in Silicon Valley and saved and consistently invested more than half of my income. It was a decision I made when I was 23. I remember doing a spreadsheet at that time to plan it all out. This was back before there were good references on how to plan it out. Some of my assumptions were a bit off, but I got there in the end.
- misteredison12 12y ago
  Can you give more details on your story? I'm particularly interested in how much you needed to retire, and how you've set everything up to make yourself comfortable that you won't run out of money.
  - siberianbear 12y ago
    This subject has been researched in great detail. There's lots of great information all over the Internet. I recommend these two blogs if you want to learn more: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ The TL;DR is this: you need to be able to live off about 3.5% of your portfolio for one year. That will allow you to avoid depleting your principal over a very long term, and also give yourself an inflation-adjusted raise every year so you maintain your spending power. Often people quote a “4%” rule, but I think it’s meant for people that retire at a more “normal” time in their lives. The extra 0.5% actually makes a big difference in the probability that your portfolio can fail. So, if you have a million dollars, you need to live off $35K a year. If you’re willing to really change your lifestyle, you can retire off $500K, which would give you $17K a year. It doesn’t sound like much in Silicon Valley, but that will put you in the top tier of income in a place like the Philippines. I don’t want to post my own net worth because it might come across as chest-beating. I’ve been living in a few places that are a lot cheaper than the United States, so my expenses are low. Over the last three years I’ve been averaging living off slightly less than 2% of my net worth annually. So, I’m REALLY safe by the “3.5% rule”. My net worth is higher than when I retired. I’m enjoying my life. Every day is a clean slate. There is nowhere that I have to be at two o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon. I can read or take a walk, go to the gym, or tinker with some computer language. I like this life. I sure hope I did all the math right, because if I have to back to a cubicle in Silicon Valley it’s going to be REALLY painful for me. No amount of free sushi by your employer is enough to compensate you for your lack of freedom.

jmspring 12y ago

It is an interesting option if you have the foresight. If you are in your twenties, someone in their 40s can teach you a thing or two. If you plan on living the life of a hermit workaholic, certainly reasonable with your life circumstances. If you have a family, want to travel, or want to buy instead of rent, assuming the Bay Area, very idealistic.

phamilton 12y ago
Or buy now and sell in 15 years or so. Move to Boise Idaho. 15 years of equity (ignoring appreciation) means you can buy a house twice the size outright.
- jmspring 12y ago
  Bay Area real estate has picked up, but timing 15 years to sell? Doesn't always work out as well as it could if things have cratered. There have been about three significant real estate collapses in the Bay Area in the last 20-30 years. Some areas hold up better than others, but, say mountain view, a 20-something at his/her first/second job, unless has other means, isn't going to pick up property easily to hold for 15 years. Affordable areas in a boom? Those most likely to take a serious crap in a downturn.
  - phamilton 12y ago
    15 years isn't exact. Boom bust cycle is 5 years or so. If the market is down in 15 years, then just wait it out. I'm not even including appreciation in the calculations.
    - jmspring 12y ago
      True, and not everyone will want to dig up and move to Idaho. Established roots, friends, etc. There is more to "home" than just the walls in which you sleep.
brianwawok 12y ago
Well that is why those of us who sit down and do the math DON'T live in the bay area. The 10% salary bump is not worth the 400% housing price bump.

siberianbear 12y ago

It's possible. I did it. I am 43 and I retired when I was 40. I lived frugally in Silicon Valley and saved and consistently invested more than half of my income. It was a decision I made when I was 23. I remember doing a spreadsheet at that time to plan it all out. This was back before there were good references on how to plan it out. Some of my assumptions were a bit off, but I got there in the end.

misteredison12 12y ago
Can you give more details on your story? I'm particularly interested in how much you needed to retire, and how you've set everything up to make yourself comfortable that you won't run out of money.
- siberianbear 12y ago
  This subject has been researched in great detail. There's lots of great information all over the Internet. I recommend these two blogs if you want to learn more: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ http://earlyretirementextreme.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ The TL;DR is this: you need to be able to live off about 3.5% of your portfolio for one year. That will allow you to avoid depleting your principal over a very long term, and also give yourself an inflation-adjusted raise every year so you maintain your spending power. Often people quote a “4%” rule, but I think it’s meant for people that retire at a more “normal” time in their lives. The extra 0.5% actually makes a big difference in the probability that your portfolio can fail. So, if you have a million dollars, you need to live off $35K a year. If you’re willing to really change your lifestyle, you can retire off $500K, which would give you $17K a year. It doesn’t sound like much in Silicon Valley, but that will put you in the top tier of income in a place like the Philippines. I don’t want to post my own net worth because it might come across as chest-beating. I’ve been living in a few places that are a lot cheaper than the United States, so my expenses are low. Over the last three years I’ve been averaging living off slightly less than 2% of my net worth annually. So, I’m REALLY safe by the “3.5% rule”. My net worth is higher than when I retired. I’m enjoying my life. Every day is a clean slate. There is nowhere that I have to be at two o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon. I can read or take a walk, go to the gym, or tinker with some computer language. I like this life. I sure hope I did all the math right, because if I have to back to a cubicle in Silicon Valley it’s going to be REALLY painful for me. No amount of free sushi by your employer is enough to compensate you for your lack of freedom.