I talk to a lot of people in the Metro NY area. One problem here is -- if you need to commute into Manhattan (job center) -- it demands a certain salary, below which commuting in is a net-loss. Rent is $2000/mo. If you have a family and cannot have multiple roommates, you might be looking at $4000/mo.
"if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day.
Now suppose you eke out some net saving -- you've unqualified yourself from medicaid health insurance now. Your net savings may not even pay for your medical deductible.
There are a lot of reasons to just not bother unless the salary can get beyond all these hurdles.
Your theory is that some people don't find it financially worthwhile to work in NYC, so therefore they decide to just give up and not work and not move anywhere else and just do absolutely nothing instead?
You have to work where the jobs are. Where the jobs are is expensive as fuck, AI and the economy are driving down labor costs (both actual number of salaries and the cost of those individual salaries)... but rent and other living costs are only going up.
> "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day.
When people say that, I think they mean "get another job in another city that doesn't require a commute to Manhattan."
But New York City as a metro area is the largest conglomeration connected by low-cost mass transit in the country meaning there's a massive liquid housing market and job market ready to fingertips. So if you live in the suburbs and the commuting cost is a dilemma you can always consider moving to the city itself
Im in the prime working age and if I didn’t have responsibilities (mortgage, health insurance, dependents etc.), I’d quit today and not participate for at least a couple of years. Corporate treatment of workers has deteriorated at an unprecedented rate since Covid and based on my anecdotal evidence we probably have a national level burnout and depression epidemic that no one is talking about or looking into. Most people I talk to in my age group are experiencing the same feelings.
One of my colleagues said that working in software is like being a pro athlete nowadays and that struck me as true. The expectations just keep going higher and higher and higher across the board. But we sure aren't given the training, coaching, recovery, salary or recognition of pro athletes.
COVID and AI are great examples of what's wrong today. We created an incredible global communication network that lets us all collaborate across the world, used it to work through a pandemic, found a better work-life balance and saved hours of commuting and pollution daily. Now everyone is being forced back to the office. Like we all lived through this period right, we remember how much more pleasant it was to be able to work remotely, and its now been snatched away for no good reason? We made technology that can save us 2 hours of commute a day and then throw it away because office buildings go empty?
AI made many of us 2x more productive (conservatively), but where is the increased salary or bonus or reduced working hours for this productivity? All the gains are outcompeted or flow to companies balance sheets. We created this incredible technology and are rewarded with crushing expectations and FASTER FASTER FASTER as usual. Like we've made this miraculous technology that can do so much work for us, but it has made our work harder not easier? Why?
Most potential workers would have to be insane to be invested in a system like this. All the gains flow to the top, everyone else gets crushed. I feel like a hamster in a wheel that keeps spinning faster and faster. All the technology and productivity should be making our lives better, should be making us happier, but everyone is poorer and more depressed now. It's clear that corporate power, inequality, politics is the reason that's happening.
studies keep showing numbers closer to -0.2x more productive. But your point stands, since those in charge of assigning our salaries think it's more than 2x.
Yeah I always laugh when some corporate stooge is on cnn talking about how such and such new technology is going to allow us to produce so much more and maybe that means we don't need to work as much... it's been the same thing since the industrial revolution. Increases in individual productivity only flow to the employer. The employee sees 0 upside. They still work the same hours, their salary remains the same but the company is extracting some multiplier of the profit from your labor.
.. people wonder why the DSA is making so much noise and wonder why the 'mainstream' democrat party is not.
We've banned this account for using HN for ideological battle and posting incoherent but apparently threatening comments. Please don't poison HN like this. Thoughtful debate is always fine here.
I'm gonna venture a guess that it's getting downvoted because it makes no sense unless the reader happens to be familiar with your obscure references, and the linked image makes even less sense. That, and whatever you're trying to say sounds like it contains far more ideology than thought.
> Still, this rate merits carefully watching in coming months; a continued decline may signal a deeper change in the behavior of workers in this critical age group.
I know I'm speaking from a rather (somewhat) privileged position. I myself don't consider working beyond 50 years of age. I have lived frugally/minimally and am confident that (unless WW3 happens or some sort of unexpected global catastrophe arrives) I can FIRE (retire frugally with my savings) before I hit 50.
I also know it's somewhat of a bubble, but Reddit has a lot of subreddits (like r/HENRYfinance/; r/Fire/; and r/coastFIRE/) dedicated for folks retiring early.
Observing that FIRE trend and the fact that AI psychosis (don't get me wrong, I believe AI is useful, but not to a level that humans will be entirely replaced) at work place will surely drive some folks away (or at least discourage them) from staying in the work force, I am not surprised that this trend is showing up in the data. Plus, a lot of millennials are child free (by choice), so they can afford to retire early as well.
I'm 45. I caught asymptomatic coronavirus in 2024 and developed Long COVID, burned out hard from my role as a Principal Engineer.
We got lucky and just happened to inherit my in-laws estate the very week that I was let go in my company's third round of layoffs. Spouse and I decided it was best to take some time away from tech and see what happens from the AI bubble.
Two years later, I'm ready to work again, but the jobs aren't there. Everything I read and everyone I talk to says that even if they were, I would probably hate the work anyway (I can't stand LLMs or the code they produce).
You could try contracting. Perhaps you would like places that are not pure software (some kind of hardware, either electrical or mechanical, that needs software for UI). I'm at one currently, and one of the hardware guys is using AI to generate test US, which seems like a reasonable use, but there isn't a lot of interest elsewhere.
I bailed out at 50 while fully employed and making a ton of money in big tech - I was not laid off, I simply let my manager know, found a replacement and walked away. I have kids but I saved enough for healthcare, housing etc. I worked my ass off and lived very frugally to get here. Yes, I would be screwed if WW3 comes along, but who wouldn't? That comfy Big Tech job would vanish pretty quickly too.
I have no desire to keep working for random "Mikes" and "Bobs" in upper management that only care about their bonuses and stocks. Not in Big Tech, not in random startups, not anywhere else. "Mike wants this", "Bob wants that"... Gosh, I couldn't care less about their "direction"!
My days are now full of self-imposed challenges and interesting projects. Am I in the labor force? I guess so, but I'm working for me and humanity now.
Time is the most precious asset we all have, folks.
You are living my dream! When I retire, I want to teach for underserved areas; I also want to help out in some ways related to the homelessness problem. Plus, I want to learn how to play piano/guitar and learn how to swim properly (I can swim, but not too well). I also want to try improv. I have ever-growing books that I want to read. So many things I can do to enjoy life personally and do something nice (albeit it having just a teeny tiny impact) for the future generation and humanity.
> I have no desire to keep working for random "Mikes" and "Bobs" in upper management that only care about their bonuses and stocks. Not in Big Tech, not in random startups, not anywhere else. "Mike wants this", "Bob wants that"... Gosh, I couldn't care less about their "direction"!
Agreed! That's one of my motivation to retire early. :)
I hope you get there! I made a lot of sacrifices. The one thing I'll say is to have the projects lined up. Don't leave the figuring out for after you stop working for others.
I just turned 50, but I never feel I can pull the trigger. The only thing really keeping me from doing it is the cost of health insurance. I've got 15 years before I can get on Medicare, and 15 years of privately purchased health insurance for the family is just not do-able.
The tight coupling between employment and health insurance is a huge issue for the US, and has been for as long as I can remember. It's a pretty big ask of someone to "become an entrepreneur; either pay your own premiums or go without!"
Yea, in an alternate universe where the USA had an actual healthcare safety net, I might have even gone the entrepreneur path rather than sweating it out for The Man for 25 years.
Thank you! Health Insurance is certainly the big one. It took me a while to save for that. There are some ways explained by the FIRE community to reduce the amount you pay through the subsidies, but these could vanish at any time so you have to be prepared for that.
In south Europe it has been the case for like 20 years. The answer is simple. Businesses don’t pay enough.
People prefer cutting expenses and expectations (nobody in their 30-40s buys a house for example). Businesses cannot find labor or customers. So it is a downward spiral.
Governments have tools they can use to make this spiral go up or down. The current direction and velocity of the spiral are policy choices. The most basic one would be the interest rate (not available to Italy because of the Eurozone)
Depending on EU country employment contract is impossible to get, or while having it you are a workhorse ruthlessly lashed to sponsor and support everyone from "poor underprivileged" to rich unwilling to pay their share, and entire legion of people in-between with more or less social and retirement priviledges. Europe killed employment.
> More than half of the decline came from a statistical correction to the population level in January and from the steady effects of an aging population, not from workers exiting the labor market. But part of the decline is due to June’s sharp drop in the participation rate among workers ages 25 to 54.
> While dramatic, the June drop brings the participation rate among these prime-age workers back to a level consistent with those of recent years.
>the rate now stands at its lowest level since 1976. What makes the move even more striking is the abruptness of the change
Nothing to see here, just another one of those things that hasn't happened since the Nixon Recession.
Coincidentally at a time when government economists made adjustments to statistical reporting to also include stepwise offsets and discontinuities, specifically to "compensate" for a new paradigm that could not be ignored because of how much worse things would look if calculated the "old" way.
I previously worked at government job, a regional water company. Was on the fast track to become the AD and then CTO in the 5-10 year range as the entire upper echelon was on the verge of retirement. Except my salary would be capped at $150k as the CTO.
The CTO himself owned a home a couple blocks off of the beach in one of the most desirable ZIP codes in my state. I, myself, best I could hope for on that salary is a plywood DR Horton house 20+ miles upriver in a neighborhood that gets robbed weekly by “Kia Boys.”
What was once a very desirable, very secure job became a joke thanks to failing wages and rampant inflation. Best-worst option was a remote job for a mid-salary and move to the sticks, pay off the house fast, and try to coast that remote lifestyle as long as possible.
Could also view it through the lens of simply not building enough housing stock.. imagine if that was a high-rise so that instead of one person living right off the beach it was 100
Yeah, alot of high stress jobs pay enough to live on, but you cant really get ahead. And so whats the point? Probably the CTO had actual equity, by now they consider it a random management role, the actual person working that job can just be swapped as needed
I don't think they're saying $150-300K will be easy, but it should be doable in raising 3 kids if you make sacrifices:
1. Seriously cut down on vacations. As an example, in the first 19 years of my life I slept in a hotel for perhaps 10 nights total (over 3 separate vacations). We did not feel at all deprived. Those who do are definitely "keeping up with the Joneses".
2. Don't buy new (or even recent) cars. Once your kids are old enough to ditch the booster seat, a Camry or Accord sized car is plenty.
3. Eliminate most subscriptions and streaming services.
4. No private schools.
5. Birthday parties for kids: Keep the budget low. It's OK not to offer a meal. Cake and snacks is fine. Limited/no decoration. Just get a good cake and stuff for them to play with.
6. Eat out only on special occasions. When I was a kid, we'd get junk food once a week, and everything else was home cooked. Actual dine-in "proper" restaurants? Perhaps oncea year. Learn recipes that can be cooked quickly.
7. Don't live in SV or Boston.
8. No, you don't need to get furniture for every room in the house (if you have a decent sized house). Have a 5 (or even 10) year plan for adding furniture and other niceties to the house.
9. If the yard is expensive to maintain, stop maintaining it if you can get away with it.
10. Don't pay more than $400 for a phone, and keep it for at least 3 years (my last one was bought for less and lasted 7 years). Only buy used phones.
The part that probably craters all of the above is medical issues (high premiums + deductibles). I offer no solution for you.
(I break a lot of these rules, but I also don't complain - I know where my problem lies).
I truly appreciate the thoughtful reply, really - we comply with most of if not all of it.
Unfortunately, the last 10-15 years has truly shifted what was once a low or middle tier CoL area into a higher tier. The Carolina Lowcountry went from hidden gem to a playground for the rich, or as a friend once put it “Antebellum Disneyland.”
I’ve used the example in other areas - my first team lead bought his house at 300k and sold it for over 1M last year. You just can’t compete anymore, I get similar stories from my Nashville and Texas colleagues.
> I’ve used the example in other areas - my first team lead bought his house at 300k and sold it for over 1M last year.
Yikes. How big is the house?
I assure you that I live in an above average COL area, and with $200K it's doable. With $300K you can get most of the luxuries I mentioned in the list (but won't retire early).
Keep in mind that there are those for whom conservatively means living with other family members or grandparents etc etc in other words there's immigrants and there's people who grew up in America with certain Suburban expectations. There are always levels. I say this to someone who myself would struggle not living that version of America we imagined when we were growing up. Um but there is a world in which you essentially live tenemens style, it's just something fairly unthinkable... one path could be to change the culture and make this less unappealing
There are people for whom conservative living is 12 people in a 1-bedroom flat. Should we aim for that? Is the economy good if most people don't have to live that way yet?
Go pick a metro, find a decent neighborhood, price out a house. Go price out insurance for a family. Go price out a minivan, go price out student loans, groceries, clothes, a cheap vacation for a week a year, car repairs, home repairs… the list goes on.
It’s not a “personal story” - the finances of living are a bitch and my math isn’t magically different, I’m not keeping up with any Jones’.
I have a lesser standard of living than my (single) mother buying a home in the 1980s here in the 2020s.
Offer a real rebuttal or kindly piss off, this isn’t Reddit.
I think that's just having a family in general if you're not into it. Many people are chosing not to because they want a different life. It's not really a money question. Humans have been having kids in much worse times. We just have the option not to. Women have more rights and we have birth control.
I talk to a lot of people in the Metro NY area. One problem here is -- if you need to commute into Manhattan (job center) -- it demands a certain salary, below which commuting in is a net-loss. Rent is $2000/mo. If you have a family and cannot have multiple roommates, you might be looking at $4000/mo.
"if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day.
Now suppose you eke out some net saving -- you've unqualified yourself from medicaid health insurance now. Your net savings may not even pay for your medical deductible.
There are a lot of reasons to just not bother unless the salary can get beyond all these hurdles.
Your theory is that some people don't find it financially worthwhile to work in NYC, so therefore they decide to just give up and not work and not move anywhere else and just do absolutely nothing instead?
In an economy where someone staying home to care for children or elderly parents can easily save $40-60k, I'd believe it.
Homemakers aren't doing nothing, they're just not represented.
You have to work where the jobs are. Where the jobs are is expensive as fuck, AI and the economy are driving down labor costs (both actual number of salaries and the cost of those individual salaries)... but rent and other living costs are only going up.
> "if you cannot afford it, stop complainingb and live elsehwere" they say...sure...but a commuter train into Manhattan can run you $30-50/day. Add in parking at the commuter train station and you're down about $60 or more a day.
When people say that, I think they mean "get another job in another city that doesn't require a commute to Manhattan."
But New York City as a metro area is the largest conglomeration connected by low-cost mass transit in the country meaning there's a massive liquid housing market and job market ready to fingertips. So if you live in the suburbs and the commuting cost is a dilemma you can always consider moving to the city itself
your suggestion to cash strapped people who can barely afford rent is "just buy a house in new york"?
Im in the prime working age and if I didn’t have responsibilities (mortgage, health insurance, dependents etc.), I’d quit today and not participate for at least a couple of years. Corporate treatment of workers has deteriorated at an unprecedented rate since Covid and based on my anecdotal evidence we probably have a national level burnout and depression epidemic that no one is talking about or looking into. Most people I talk to in my age group are experiencing the same feelings.
One of my colleagues said that working in software is like being a pro athlete nowadays and that struck me as true. The expectations just keep going higher and higher and higher across the board. But we sure aren't given the training, coaching, recovery, salary or recognition of pro athletes.
COVID and AI are great examples of what's wrong today. We created an incredible global communication network that lets us all collaborate across the world, used it to work through a pandemic, found a better work-life balance and saved hours of commuting and pollution daily. Now everyone is being forced back to the office. Like we all lived through this period right, we remember how much more pleasant it was to be able to work remotely, and its now been snatched away for no good reason? We made technology that can save us 2 hours of commute a day and then throw it away because office buildings go empty?
AI made many of us 2x more productive (conservatively), but where is the increased salary or bonus or reduced working hours for this productivity? All the gains are outcompeted or flow to companies balance sheets. We created this incredible technology and are rewarded with crushing expectations and FASTER FASTER FASTER as usual. Like we've made this miraculous technology that can do so much work for us, but it has made our work harder not easier? Why?
Most potential workers would have to be insane to be invested in a system like this. All the gains flow to the top, everyone else gets crushed. I feel like a hamster in a wheel that keeps spinning faster and faster. All the technology and productivity should be making our lives better, should be making us happier, but everyone is poorer and more depressed now. It's clear that corporate power, inequality, politics is the reason that's happening.
> 2x more productive (conservatively)
studies keep showing numbers closer to -0.2x more productive. But your point stands, since those in charge of assigning our salaries think it's more than 2x.
Yeah I always laugh when some corporate stooge is on cnn talking about how such and such new technology is going to allow us to produce so much more and maybe that means we don't need to work as much... it's been the same thing since the industrial revolution. Increases in individual productivity only flow to the employer. The employee sees 0 upside. They still work the same hours, their salary remains the same but the company is extracting some multiplier of the profit from your labor.
.. people wonder why the DSA is making so much noise and wonder why the 'mainstream' democrat party is not.
Looks like trickling up of the covid money is definitely complete now.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for using HN for ideological battle and posting incoherent but apparently threatening comments. Please don't poison HN like this. Thoughtful debate is always fine here.
@dang this gets brigaded? It goes in the lawsuit.
I'm gonna venture a guess that it's getting downvoted because it makes no sense unless the reader happens to be familiar with your obscure references, and the linked image makes even less sense. That, and whatever you're trying to say sounds like it contains far more ideology than thought.
I don't care what happens to parent.
If they fuck with GP it's discovery.
Organic downvotes at human speed are fine.
GP getting flagged at machine speed?
Nah dawg. That's a hard no.
Edit: oh gee willicker. I completely forgot to mention I chart all of this. I don't even need an HMM. XGboost prints the fucking switch statement.
You got banned, that means all of your comments are now flagged automatically.
no one understands what you are saying
> Still, this rate merits carefully watching in coming months; a continued decline may signal a deeper change in the behavior of workers in this critical age group.
I know I'm speaking from a rather (somewhat) privileged position. I myself don't consider working beyond 50 years of age. I have lived frugally/minimally and am confident that (unless WW3 happens or some sort of unexpected global catastrophe arrives) I can FIRE (retire frugally with my savings) before I hit 50.
I also know it's somewhat of a bubble, but Reddit has a lot of subreddits (like r/HENRYfinance/; r/Fire/; and r/coastFIRE/) dedicated for folks retiring early.
Observing that FIRE trend and the fact that AI psychosis (don't get me wrong, I believe AI is useful, but not to a level that humans will be entirely replaced) at work place will surely drive some folks away (or at least discourage them) from staying in the work force, I am not surprised that this trend is showing up in the data. Plus, a lot of millennials are child free (by choice), so they can afford to retire early as well.
I'm 45. I caught asymptomatic coronavirus in 2024 and developed Long COVID, burned out hard from my role as a Principal Engineer.
We got lucky and just happened to inherit my in-laws estate the very week that I was let go in my company's third round of layoffs. Spouse and I decided it was best to take some time away from tech and see what happens from the AI bubble.
Two years later, I'm ready to work again, but the jobs aren't there. Everything I read and everyone I talk to says that even if they were, I would probably hate the work anyway (I can't stand LLMs or the code they produce).
So I guess I'm retired now.
You could try contracting. Perhaps you would like places that are not pure software (some kind of hardware, either electrical or mechanical, that needs software for UI). I'm at one currently, and one of the hardware guys is using AI to generate test US, which seems like a reasonable use, but there isn't a lot of interest elsewhere.
I bailed out at 50 while fully employed and making a ton of money in big tech - I was not laid off, I simply let my manager know, found a replacement and walked away. I have kids but I saved enough for healthcare, housing etc. I worked my ass off and lived very frugally to get here. Yes, I would be screwed if WW3 comes along, but who wouldn't? That comfy Big Tech job would vanish pretty quickly too.
I have no desire to keep working for random "Mikes" and "Bobs" in upper management that only care about their bonuses and stocks. Not in Big Tech, not in random startups, not anywhere else. "Mike wants this", "Bob wants that"... Gosh, I couldn't care less about their "direction"!
My days are now full of self-imposed challenges and interesting projects. Am I in the labor force? I guess so, but I'm working for me and humanity now.
Time is the most precious asset we all have, folks.
You are living my dream! When I retire, I want to teach for underserved areas; I also want to help out in some ways related to the homelessness problem. Plus, I want to learn how to play piano/guitar and learn how to swim properly (I can swim, but not too well). I also want to try improv. I have ever-growing books that I want to read. So many things I can do to enjoy life personally and do something nice (albeit it having just a teeny tiny impact) for the future generation and humanity.
> I have no desire to keep working for random "Mikes" and "Bobs" in upper management that only care about their bonuses and stocks. Not in Big Tech, not in random startups, not anywhere else. "Mike wants this", "Bob wants that"... Gosh, I couldn't care less about their "direction"!
Agreed! That's one of my motivation to retire early. :)
I hope you get there! I made a lot of sacrifices. The one thing I'll say is to have the projects lined up. Don't leave the figuring out for after you stop working for others.
I also commend you for not "hogging all the work". If you've done well and don't have to work, it's generous to let someone else have their turn.
I salute you!
I just turned 50, but I never feel I can pull the trigger. The only thing really keeping me from doing it is the cost of health insurance. I've got 15 years before I can get on Medicare, and 15 years of privately purchased health insurance for the family is just not do-able.
The tight coupling between employment and health insurance is a huge issue for the US, and has been for as long as I can remember. It's a pretty big ask of someone to "become an entrepreneur; either pay your own premiums or go without!"
Yea, in an alternate universe where the USA had an actual healthcare safety net, I might have even gone the entrepreneur path rather than sweating it out for The Man for 25 years.
Thank you! Health Insurance is certainly the big one. It took me a while to save for that. There are some ways explained by the FIRE community to reduce the amount you pay through the subsidies, but these could vanish at any time so you have to be prepared for that.
In south Europe it has been the case for like 20 years. The answer is simple. Businesses don’t pay enough.
People prefer cutting expenses and expectations (nobody in their 30-40s buys a house for example). Businesses cannot find labor or customers. So it is a downward spiral.
Everyone loses.
Governments have tools they can use to make this spiral go up or down. The current direction and velocity of the spiral are policy choices. The most basic one would be the interest rate (not available to Italy because of the Eurozone)
[flagged]
Depending on EU country employment contract is impossible to get, or while having it you are a workhorse ruthlessly lashed to sponsor and support everyone from "poor underprivileged" to rich unwilling to pay their share, and entire legion of people in-between with more or less social and retirement priviledges. Europe killed employment.
Beyond clear the latter is far more at fault than the former.
> More than half of the decline came from a statistical correction to the population level in January and from the steady effects of an aging population, not from workers exiting the labor market. But part of the decline is due to June’s sharp drop in the participation rate among workers ages 25 to 54.
> While dramatic, the June drop brings the participation rate among these prime-age workers back to a level consistent with those of recent years.
nothing to note unless it continues to drop
Considering the prior years were Covid, and the obvious scale tipping from the gov’t? Yeah right.
we've had people saying the sky is falling for years now
who said the sky is falling? i'm just saying if you trust anything in those reports one way or another, I have a bridge to sell you.
>the rate now stands at its lowest level since 1976. What makes the move even more striking is the abruptness of the change
Nothing to see here, just another one of those things that hasn't happened since the Nixon Recession.
Coincidentally at a time when government economists made adjustments to statistical reporting to also include stepwise offsets and discontinuities, specifically to "compensate" for a new paradigm that could not be ignored because of how much worse things would look if calculated the "old" way.
Anecdotal evidence, but more than half of my friends that grew up:
1. middle upper class
2. college educated at a top 75 college
3. tall, decent looking
are just not working regular corporate 9 to 5s and get by with consulting, small businesses, living off parents, living off nothing, scammy startups
w2 9-5 is straight up not worth it, even in the 150-300k range
I previously worked at government job, a regional water company. Was on the fast track to become the AD and then CTO in the 5-10 year range as the entire upper echelon was on the verge of retirement. Except my salary would be capped at $150k as the CTO.
The CTO himself owned a home a couple blocks off of the beach in one of the most desirable ZIP codes in my state. I, myself, best I could hope for on that salary is a plywood DR Horton house 20+ miles upriver in a neighborhood that gets robbed weekly by “Kia Boys.”
What was once a very desirable, very secure job became a joke thanks to failing wages and rampant inflation. Best-worst option was a remote job for a mid-salary and move to the sticks, pay off the house fast, and try to coast that remote lifestyle as long as possible.
Could also view it through the lens of simply not building enough housing stock.. imagine if that was a high-rise so that instead of one person living right off the beach it was 100
Yeah, alot of high stress jobs pay enough to live on, but you cant really get ahead. And so whats the point? Probably the CTO had actual equity, by now they consider it a random management role, the actual person working that job can just be swapped as needed
If 150k to 300k isn't enough for someone, they need financial therapy
Try raising a classic family of three with a stay at home spouse in that salary in any metro. You will quickly learn how fast those dollars disappear.
Somehow my grandfather did this as a painter.
Inflation is a killer.
Only if you're trying to keep up with the Joneses.
No. Do the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_in_the_Fast_Lane such a classic. And a real lesson in it too
I've never played this but now I need to
Nope! We live very conservatively. Turns out life is expensive.
I'm guessing you live in a high COL area?
I don't think they're saying $150-300K will be easy, but it should be doable in raising 3 kids if you make sacrifices:
1. Seriously cut down on vacations. As an example, in the first 19 years of my life I slept in a hotel for perhaps 10 nights total (over 3 separate vacations). We did not feel at all deprived. Those who do are definitely "keeping up with the Joneses".
2. Don't buy new (or even recent) cars. Once your kids are old enough to ditch the booster seat, a Camry or Accord sized car is plenty.
3. Eliminate most subscriptions and streaming services.
4. No private schools.
5. Birthday parties for kids: Keep the budget low. It's OK not to offer a meal. Cake and snacks is fine. Limited/no decoration. Just get a good cake and stuff for them to play with.
6. Eat out only on special occasions. When I was a kid, we'd get junk food once a week, and everything else was home cooked. Actual dine-in "proper" restaurants? Perhaps oncea year. Learn recipes that can be cooked quickly.
7. Don't live in SV or Boston.
8. No, you don't need to get furniture for every room in the house (if you have a decent sized house). Have a 5 (or even 10) year plan for adding furniture and other niceties to the house.
9. If the yard is expensive to maintain, stop maintaining it if you can get away with it.
10. Don't pay more than $400 for a phone, and keep it for at least 3 years (my last one was bought for less and lasted 7 years). Only buy used phones.
The part that probably craters all of the above is medical issues (high premiums + deductibles). I offer no solution for you.
(I break a lot of these rules, but I also don't complain - I know where my problem lies).
I truly appreciate the thoughtful reply, really - we comply with most of if not all of it.
Unfortunately, the last 10-15 years has truly shifted what was once a low or middle tier CoL area into a higher tier. The Carolina Lowcountry went from hidden gem to a playground for the rich, or as a friend once put it “Antebellum Disneyland.”
I’ve used the example in other areas - my first team lead bought his house at 300k and sold it for over 1M last year. You just can’t compete anymore, I get similar stories from my Nashville and Texas colleagues.
The only winning move is to not play.
> I’ve used the example in other areas - my first team lead bought his house at 300k and sold it for over 1M last year.
Yikes. How big is the house?
I assure you that I live in an above average COL area, and with $200K it's doable. With $300K you can get most of the luxuries I mentioned in the list (but won't retire early).
Keep in mind that there are those for whom conservatively means living with other family members or grandparents etc etc in other words there's immigrants and there's people who grew up in America with certain Suburban expectations. There are always levels. I say this to someone who myself would struggle not living that version of America we imagined when we were growing up. Um but there is a world in which you essentially live tenemens style, it's just something fairly unthinkable... one path could be to change the culture and make this less unappealing
There are people for whom conservative living is 12 people in a 1-bedroom flat. Should we aim for that? Is the economy good if most people don't have to live that way yet?
[flagged]
Thank you for the insightful rebuttal!
It's not a rebuttal. There's no rebuttal to someone's personal story.
Go pick a metro, find a decent neighborhood, price out a house. Go price out insurance for a family. Go price out a minivan, go price out student loans, groceries, clothes, a cheap vacation for a week a year, car repairs, home repairs… the list goes on.
It’s not a “personal story” - the finances of living are a bitch and my math isn’t magically different, I’m not keeping up with any Jones’.
I have a lesser standard of living than my (single) mother buying a home in the 1980s here in the 2020s.
Offer a real rebuttal or kindly piss off, this isn’t Reddit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
its not that its not enough to live on, its just not worth it for what you give up in life
more and more people are just choosing not to play that game
I think that's just having a family in general if you're not into it. Many people are chosing not to because they want a different life. It's not really a money question. Humans have been having kids in much worse times. We just have the option not to. Women have more rights and we have birth control.
no these people have families
how are any of those premises connected to the conclusion?
people that are able to work "good jobs" are choosing not to
ai drivel, sadly / humorously
Pangram gave 95% human for the chunk (1,547 words) that I gave it. Part of a single paragraph was listed as AI.
maybe it was that 90% of all hiring in 2020-2024 was foreigners thing?
What changed in June?