3 ms·
Sure, you can minimise the relevance of the "discrepancy" and claim that the author isn't entitled, but the entire enterprise of this article is based on the pr
by richmarr 11y ago
Sure, you can minimise the relevance of the "discrepancy" and claim that the author isn't entitled, but the entire enterprise of this article is based on the premise of discovering whether these really are the "minimum" living costs. Is it a "discrepancy" or is it the way the author sees the world?
The end of the article even asks: "Frugalists: With such a cost structure, where would you start saving first?"
Not "lower earners", but "frugalists". That's people who earn £500k but don't necessarily want to spend it all. The author isn't even addressing the paupers who only earn £250k, or the near-beggars who only earn £100k.
- prawn 11y agoFrom memory, "minimum" was the term used by his friends. It's more about them than the way the "author sees the world". I think you're reading too much into someone's exploration of a particular situation. It remains an opportunity for you or anyone else to run through the expenditure of any of those other pricepoints you mentioned. Though obviously they are unlikely to reach HN because they're not quite as exciting or outrageous.
- richmarr 11y agoI think you're reading too much... The author has thought about, analysed, and written an essay on this subject, using the word "minimum" regularly (including in the title) and not once gave a single nod to anyone earning less than £500k/year... then going on to address people that wanted to consider spending less as "frugalists". Maybe you're right, maybe I'm just primed to think the author entitled because they self-identify as a "High net worth personal finance blogger".