Silly article on how much you need to be fi

[RookieStache]

Many posters are replying with what they are currently spending money on. If I were to retire early, I would make damn sure that I had no car/house payments. If I were a single person NOT in a HCOLA, I would have to

The article is explicitly including housing costs in the equation.  Obviously removing this changes things a lot.  As a side note, there are very good reasons to have housing costs going into retirement.

Could you explain, could be a learning experience for me here. Please exclude 15 vs 30 year mortgage debate as we would be assuming someone paid the house off at a 30 year fixed rate with no accelerated payments.

have fun reading it:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/paying-off-mortgage-early-how-bad-is-it-for-your-fi-date/

tl;dr: For those of us with a fixed mortgage under 4% it is highly probable that over long time scales (15-30 years) they will be financially better off than if they used excess funds to pay off the mortgage faster.  Inflation plays a big factor into this, as does the historical rates of return in the market.

Nereo, I understand all of this and that's why I added the disclaimer of let's assume someone paid their mortgage off at a fixed rate of 30 years and didn't make any accelerated payments.

[HBFIRE]

Nereo, I understand all of this and that's why I added the disclaimer of let's assume someone paid their mortgage off at a fixed rate of 30 years and didn't make any accelerated payments.

You'd still be better off refinancing and putting the funds to use in the market.  Assuming you can refinance at a good rate.  Below 4% is essentially free money.  Now obviously there are many things to consider.  How large one's portfolio is, etc.  If I'm retiring at 25x, i definitely want a mortgage as things are pretty tight.  As I have more cushion, I'd want to reduce my risk and perhaps pay down the mortgage and increase bonds.  The interesting thing is house equity acts in some ways like bonds, protecting you a bit from market crashes.  Would be interesting to treat equity like bonds, refry/rebalancing into stocks when the market goes down.  Also known as leveraging, which definitely has some risks associated with it.

[JLE1990]

They are recommending that people get a job that pays more than 10k a month and spend ALL OF THAT!

Ah, I see.  You misread the article.  This is what they consider the levels of financial independence, not what one should spend while building up a portfolio.  Now I see why you keep comparing it to median incomes.

OMG you are right! That's even worse!

But it doesn't change the fact the article is wrong and insane and spending $50k/year is insanely luxurious and still more than the net income of an entire family...

I really don't know how many different ways to say it...

[JLE1990]

Oye...people. Focus on the bigger picture. Who cares what the author spends or thinks you should spend. That website is devoted to INCREASING INCOME, not reducing costs. You are reading too much into the language. All this article is trying to do is to speak to the top 50% of earners by picking their 'baseline' at $4K/mo as that's roughly the median income and most people have the mindset of spend what you earn.

As a thought experiment for those long time MMMers:

-How much time do you (would you) spend to save an additional $100/mo? I'm not talking about the initial spending cut when you found MMM, I'm talking about after 12+ months of expense tracking / cutting (e.g. No more low hanging fruit / one time effort cuts like cutting cable or changing a phone plan)
-Instead of using that time to further expense cut, what if you used that time to think creatively about increasing your income? How much extra could you earn?
-Imagine if you were able to increase your income and it ALL went into savings/investments (because you aren't going to increase your spending, you're a MMMer, right?)
-Using your tool of choice (spreadsheet, FIRECalc, etc.), what impact would increasing your income have on your FI aspirations?

While cost cutting helps tremendously initially and is great for the environment, eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns where you spend more and more time to save smaller and smaller amounts. At that point it makes sense, from a financial standpoint, to focus on the other side of the equation, especially if you have higher value skills (hire a cleaning service for $20/hr while you earn $100/hr). If and when you 'pull the plug' and RE, cut the cleaning service as you now have more free time.

This is an interesting consideration and difficulty I have. In order to start my side business I had to spend an additional $300/mon. So instead I am moving to higher paying job that will pay for all those expenses and pay me at the same time.

The quote of "it takes money to make money" does apply sometimes. I think its a case by case basis. For instance if someone was buying a new franchise in my business, they can either spend a shitton on advertising and billboards and personnel; or they can be frugal and use door hangers and do more themselves.

[e34bb098]

But it doesn't change the fact the article is wrong and insane and spending $50k/year is insanely luxurious and still more than the net income of an entire family...

Ignoring the train wreck of the last few pages, this is the key takeaway.

It is hard to believe that the WallStreetPlayboys put in enough work to be reasonable financially savvy (using the 4% rule, e.g.) and studied human psychology enough to wax poetic about the value of networking and sales skills -- yet somehow missed the massive part of human psychology about the hedonic treadmill.  They even recommend a book on stoicism and yet somehow can't make the connection between stoicism and the freedom/happiness it brings through not being a slave to your desires.

In other words -- just another set of consumer suckas.

[mathlete]

Just in case any of you were under the impression that the purveyor of "WallStreetPlayboys" wasn't a piece of shit, here are some choice quotes I found:

if you want to date a female (n San Francisco) who is not overweight your only choice will be Asian women. There is nothing wrong with this, but, you better have that yellow fever otherwise you’re going to be in pain for a long time.

San Francisco is feminism ground zero. Ground zero. In addition, if you are not a Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton supporter you’re instantly labeled a monster

More importantly, outside of your political affiliation, the city looks a bit like a circus. It is halloween 24/7/365 and not the good kind with attractive women running around in sexy outfits.

There is a large community of homosexuals in the city. If that is your thing you will enjoy Man Francisco. We are heterosexual.

He goes on to call tech employees "Aspies". Stunning insight...

I'm sure he's just playing the role of provocateur so that he can scrape some cash together from baiting clicks. But if you're willing to act like a shitty person to get attention, you're just a shitty person.

[HBFIRE]

Meh.  It's the interwebs, I expect this kind of thing.  I don't get offended by anything these days nor do I care enough to judge him a "pos".  If there is useful content to be found is all I care about.  There's some useful content on this site, particularly on increasing income - just have to sift through the dramatic stuff and not be easily offended.

[mathlete]

Meh.  It's the interwebs, I expect this kind of thing.  I don't get offended by anything these days nor do I care enough to judge him a "pos".  If there is useful content to be found is all I care about.  There was some useful content on this site, just have to sift through the dramatic stuff.

Just because people often behave shitty on the Internet, doesn't mean that shitty behavior isn't shitty. It's shitty and should be labeled as such.

And it doesn't take much caring to judge someone as a piece of shit. You just observe them behaving like a piece of shit, and that's pretty much it =D

Glad you extracted some useful info though. We can't be too picky when it comes to that I suppose.

[HBFIRE]

Meh.  It's the interwebs, I expect this kind of thing.  I don't get offended by anything these days nor do I care enough to judge him a "pos".  If there is useful content to be found is all I care about.  There was some useful content on this site, just have to sift through the dramatic stuff.

Just because people often behave shitty on the Internet, doesn't mean that shitty behavior isn't shitty. It's shitty and should be labeled as such.

And it doesn't take much caring to judge someone as a piece of shit. You just observe them behaving like a piece of shit, and that's pretty much it =D

Glad you extracted some useful info though. We can't be too picky when it comes to that I suppose.

Okay, but a practical Bruce Lee quote comes to mind:

"Absorb what is useful and discard the rest"

Ignore the noise.  I don't think there is any site/community that I find 100% of its content useful. 

I try my best not to judge others as I never know the complete story.  Plus, it doesn't accomplish anything.  I just focus on myself.  Stoicism works well.

[jlcnuke]

I'm not missing the point. The median income is around $60k pretax and $50k post tax. This entire website is devoted to not living like the average American. I would say the average American lives a pretty comfortable lifestyle. House, newer cars not my 23 year old POS, goes on vacations yearly vs what my wife and I pass for vacations, does leisure activities, etc, doesn't freeze in their house to save money on electric costs, etc.

You can say that, and from the vantage point of someone who isn't doing the things those people are doing, I can see why you would say that. From the vantage point of someone who's spent $20k/year, $40k/year, and much more, I can say that there is no way I'd say the average American family is living a "comfortable" lifestyle. 65% of Americans lose sleep over money concerns. A person who is comfortable financially is not losing sleep over money. The average family living on the median income in a median priced home is saving nothing. They aren't taking "comfortable" vacations every year, they're taking a "nice-to-them" vacation (meaning Disney maybe, not Paris or Bali) for a week or less once every few years.

But don't trust me (because I make more than the average person these days) to decide what is needed to live comfortably, let's ask America what they think is needed to have a comfortable life. =http://www.businessinsider.com/the-basic-annual-income-every-american-would-need-is-150000-2012-3$150,000/year is needed to live comfortably according to Americans. with 52% of Americans saying they can only afford "the basics".


None of this is Mustachian, and none of it is geared towards the type of people that come to this forum. Not many people would argue that the author of the piece being discussed is a "great guy". That doesn't mean, for those "non-mustachian spendypants" out there that the information isn't in the ballpark. Useless probably, but still fairly close.

[JLee]

I'm not missing the point. The median income is around $60k pretax and $50k post tax. This entire website is devoted to not living like the average American. I would say the average American lives a pretty comfortable lifestyle. House, newer cars not my 23 year old POS, goes on vacations yearly vs what my wife and I pass for vacations, does leisure activities, etc, doesn't freeze in their house to save money on electric costs, etc.

You can say that, and from the vantage point of someone who isn't doing the things those people are doing, I can see why you would say that. From the vantage point of someone who's spent $20k/year, $40k/year, and much more, I can say that there is no way I'd say the average American family is living a "comfortable" lifestyle. 65% of Americans lose sleep over money concerns. A person who is comfortable financially is not losing sleep over money. The average family living on the median income in a median priced home is saving nothing. They aren't taking "comfortable" vacations every year, they're taking a "nice-to-them" vacation (meaning Disney maybe, not Paris or Bali) for a week or less once every few years.

But don't trust me (because I make more than the average person these days) to decide what is needed to live comfortably, let's ask America what they think is needed to have a comfortable life. =http://www.businessinsider.com/the-basic-annual-income-every-american-would-need-is-150000-2012-3$150,000/year is needed to live comfortably according to Americans. with 52% of Americans saying they can only afford "the basics".


None of this is Mustachian, and none of it is geared towards the type of people that come to this forum. Not many people would argue that the author of the piece being discussed is a "great guy". That doesn't mean, for those "non-mustachian spendypants" out there that the information isn't in the ballpark. Useless probably, but still fairly close.

So...it takes twice as much to be comfortable as it does to be happy?

I don't buy it. People are idiots and the hedonistic treadmill just keeps going.

[the_fixer]

Jlcnuke

It does not matter if you give the average person 100k or 200k they will spend it, have next to nothing to show for it and be just as unhappy.

Your average American sucks at $$$

That is just the way it is, we have people on here that would feel like they are living large off 40k and others that would feel impoverished.

Perception may equal your reality but each person has a different vision based on their reality.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[inline five]

Just in case any of you were under the impression that the purveyor of "WallStreetPlayboys" wasn't a piece of shit, here are some choice quotes I found:

if you want to date a female (n San Francisco) who is not overweight your only choice will be Asian women. There is nothing wrong with this, but, you better have that yellow fever otherwise you’re going to be in pain for a long time.

San Francisco is feminism ground zero. Ground zero. In addition, if you are not a Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton supporter you’re instantly labeled a monster

More importantly, outside of your political affiliation, the city looks a bit like a circus. It is halloween 24/7/365 and not the good kind with attractive women running around in sexy outfits.

There is a large community of homosexuals in the city. If that is your thing you will enjoy Man Francisco. We are heterosexual.

He goes on to call tech employees "Aspies". Stunning insight...

I'm sure he's just playing the role of provocateur so that he can scrape some cash together from baiting clicks. But if you're willing to act like a shitty person to get attention, you're just a shitty person.

Been in San Fran? He's just saying what everyone else is thinking :D.

Personally I love it there, I used to go several times a month, stayed in the financial district and would walk to my favorite hole in the wall called Cafe Francisco for lunch.

That being said I'm not a homophobe and honestly almost everyone in Cali that I run into is super cool.

[inline five]

I'm not missing the point. The median income is around $60k pretax and $50k post tax. This entire website is devoted to not living like the average American. I would say the average American lives a pretty comfortable lifestyle. House, newer cars not my 23 year old POS, goes on vacations yearly vs what my wife and I pass for vacations, does leisure activities, etc, doesn't freeze in their house to save money on electric costs, etc.

You can say that, and from the vantage point of someone who isn't doing the things those people are doing, I can see why you would say that. From the vantage point of someone who's spent $20k/year, $40k/year, and much more, I can say that there is no way I'd say the average American family is living a "comfortable" lifestyle. 65% of Americans lose sleep over money concerns. A person who is comfortable financially is not losing sleep over money. The average family living on the median income in a median priced home is saving nothing. They aren't taking "comfortable" vacations every year, they're taking a "nice-to-them" vacation (meaning Disney maybe, not Paris or Bali) for a week or less once every few years.

But don't trust me (because I make more than the average person these days) to decide what is needed to live comfortably, let's ask America what they think is needed to have a comfortable life. =http://www.businessinsider.com/the-basic-annual-income-every-american-would-need-is-150000-2012-3$150,000/year is needed to live comfortably according to Americans. with 52% of Americans saying they can only afford "the basics".


None of this is Mustachian, and none of it is geared towards the type of people that come to this forum. Not many people would argue that the author of the piece being discussed is a "great guy". That doesn't mean, for those "non-mustachian spendypants" out there that the information isn't in the ballpark. Useless probably, but still fairly close.

What I found for us is it wasn't the spending level that made us feel comfortable, it was the excess that did so.

When we were saving $1,500/month I felt like we were living on the edge. Also owning your home helps as well, there isn't much that can kick you out as long as you pay the taxes.

[DS]

"wallstreetplayboys" - wouldn't expect any silliness from such a site..weird...

[jlcnuke]

I'm not missing the point. The median income is around $60k pretax and $50k post tax. This entire website is devoted to not living like the average American. I would say the average American lives a pretty comfortable lifestyle. House, newer cars not my 23 year old POS, goes on vacations yearly vs what my wife and I pass for vacations, does leisure activities, etc, doesn't freeze in their house to save money on electric costs, etc.

You can say that, and from the vantage point of someone who isn't doing the things those people are doing, I can see why you would say that. From the vantage point of someone who's spent $20k/year, $40k/year, and much more, I can say that there is no way I'd say the average American family is living a "comfortable" lifestyle. 65% of Americans lose sleep over money concerns. A person who is comfortable financially is not losing sleep over money. The average family living on the median income in a median priced home is saving nothing. They aren't taking "comfortable" vacations every year, they're taking a "nice-to-them" vacation (meaning Disney maybe, not Paris or Bali) for a week or less once every few years.

But don't trust me (because I make more than the average person these days) to decide what is needed to live comfortably, let's ask America what they think is needed to have a comfortable life. =http://www.businessinsider.com/the-basic-annual-income-every-american-would-need-is-150000-2012-3$150,000/year is needed to live comfortably according to Americans. with 52% of Americans saying they can only afford "the basics".


None of this is Mustachian, and none of it is geared towards the type of people that come to this forum. Not many people would argue that the author of the piece being discussed is a "great guy". That doesn't mean, for those "non-mustachian spendypants" out there that the information isn't in the ballpark. Useless probably, but still fairly close.

So...it takes twice as much to be comfortable as it does to be happy?

I don't buy it. People are idiots and the hedonistic treadmill just keeps going.

Nobody's asking you to buy into it, we're asking you to accept the fact that the majority of Americans are more in-line with what the guy writing the article than you when it comes to what is "comfortable" or "baller" spending. The fact that you have to make more than the median household income to get to that "happy" level, and twice that before the majority of people start to feel comfortable isn't a debate about your spending habits or theirs, it's information. That information shows that most people are close to thinking his spending is what is needed to "live a decent life" than what you think is needed. You don't have to agree with them, but your opinion being different than most doesn't make them wrong, just like it doesn't make you wrong. You just have different opinions.

The_Fixer got it right here when they said:

That is just the way it is, we have people on here that would feel like they are living large off 40k and others that would feel impoverished.

Perception may equal your reality but each person has a different vision based on their reality.

When I was ten I'd probably have taken a lifetime vow of celibacy for $10k. Today I couldn't say what you'd have to pay me to do such a thing, but it massively more than $10k. Different perceptions and experiences change what is acceptable to different individuals, or even the same individual at a different time in their life.

[JLee]

I'm not missing the point. The median income is around $60k pretax and $50k post tax. This entire website is devoted to not living like the average American. I would say the average American lives a pretty comfortable lifestyle. House, newer cars not my 23 year old POS, goes on vacations yearly vs what my wife and I pass for vacations, does leisure activities, etc, doesn't freeze in their house to save money on electric costs, etc.

You can say that, and from the vantage point of someone who isn't doing the things those people are doing, I can see why you would say that. From the vantage point of someone who's spent $20k/year, $40k/year, and much more, I can say that there is no way I'd say the average American family is living a "comfortable" lifestyle. 65% of Americans lose sleep over money concerns. A person who is comfortable financially is not losing sleep over money. The average family living on the median income in a median priced home is saving nothing. They aren't taking "comfortable" vacations every year, they're taking a "nice-to-them" vacation (meaning Disney maybe, not Paris or Bali) for a week or less once every few years.

But don't trust me (because I make more than the average person these days) to decide what is needed to live comfortably, let's ask America what they think is needed to have a comfortable life. =http://www.businessinsider.com/the-basic-annual-income-every-american-would-need-is-150000-2012-3$150,000/year is needed to live comfortably according to Americans. with 52% of Americans saying they can only afford "the basics".


None of this is Mustachian, and none of it is geared towards the type of people that come to this forum. Not many people would argue that the author of the piece being discussed is a "great guy". That doesn't mean, for those "non-mustachian spendypants" out there that the information isn't in the ballpark. Useless probably, but still fairly close.

So...it takes twice as much to be comfortable as it does to be happy?

I don't buy it. People are idiots and the hedonistic treadmill just keeps going.

Nobody's asking you to buy into it, we're asking you to accept the fact that the majority of Americans are more in-line with what the guy writing the article than you when it comes to what is "comfortable" or "baller" spending. The fact that you have to make more than the median household income to get to that "happy" level, and twice that before the majority of people start to feel comfortable isn't a debate about your spending habits or theirs, it's information. That information shows that most people are close to thinking his spending is what is needed to "live a decent life" than what you think is needed. You don't have to agree with them, but your opinion being different than most doesn't make them wrong, just like it doesn't make you wrong. You just have different opinions.

The_Fixer got it right here when they said:

That is just the way it is, we have people on here that would feel like they are living large off 40k and others that would feel impoverished.

Perception may equal your reality but each person has a different vision based on their reality.

When I was ten I'd probably have taken a lifetime vow of celibacy for $10k. Today I couldn't say what you'd have to pay me to do such a thing, but it massively more than $10k. Different perceptions and experiences change what is acceptable to different individuals, or even the same individual at a different time in their life.

I think people's definition of "the basics" are what's skewing the math here. A $600 iPhone every year, a $150/mo cell phone plan, $500/mo in bars/restaurants, and a $250/mo cable bill are not "the basics."

For context, your link mentions $156k COL-adjusted for Phoenix in 2012 as the "comfortable" level.  I bought my house in Phoenix in 2013 in my pre-MMM days -- it's an 1825 sq ft house on a 10k sq ft lot, remodeled in 2011, diving pool, garage, etc.  I paid $140k for the house.  At the time I was driving a Tacoma 4x4, an MR2 Turbo, and a Cadillac CTS-V.

On a $40k/yr income.

Earning another $116k/year would've allowed for absolutely hilarious levels of spending, and with a nice house and three cars I wasn't exactly hurting!  I can't fathom what people think "the basics" are if they need nearly four times what I was making then in order to be "comfortable." 

[Davnasty]

That's amazing if you are saving 50-60k/year. But that puts your income at around 120k+/year. That puts you in the top 20% of HOUSEHOLDS, so you're making more money than 80% of people, including those where there is two people working. Either you are completely oblivious to how little others in this country(one of the riches in the world) or you are deliberately being obtuse about what is "normal." Eating lobster fish or whatever you have in your freezer every night is being a baller when 90% of the country and 99% of the rest of the world make less than you. If you are saving 50-60k a year and plan to retire in your 40s than I applaud you absolutely, but to consider yourself "normal" like you stated before just shows a lack of self-awareness at best.

See, you just don't seem to understand what "baller" is.

Baller:
Flies first class when flying (at $600-15k/flight) to stay at 5-star resorts (at $1-10k/night) on the other side of the world for weeks at a time.
Drives a Ferrari with $4k/month car payments.
Owns a boat with similar payments or higher.
Drives another car that also cost 6-figures.
Wears suits that cost $2-10k each.
Does bottle service at the night club in Vegas before continuing the party in their 2 bedroom suite and gamble away whatever they feel like - one week cost of ~$10-100+k
etc etc... that's "baller".  Living much more extravagantly than people in rural China or Nairobi isn't baller in the US, poverty meets that standard.

I know what "normal" is, when I was 19 I was living with a roommate in a crappy apartment making shit money as an enlisted guy in the Navy (pay tables are public, feel free to look up the equivalent of my pay when I enlisted). I've come a long way since then.

"Normal" Americans have car payments and get their cell plans through Verizon or T-mobile and pay for the premium channels on cable while driving their 3-year old -still has 3 years of payments but we're trading it in anyway- car that cost 2/3rds of their annual income while buying the largest home they could find without having their mortgage exceed the 28% rule (or exceeding it, whatever). "Normal" Americans spend 97% of their income after taxes and have next to no tax liability to start with, which is why it's possible for a "normal" American to blow through $4k/month without a problem despite only earning a bit more than that.

No, YOU don't understand what baller is

ball·er:

1.a person or device that makes or forms something into balls.  (i.e. melon baller)

[ysette9]

We are around that “living the good life” mark as a family of four in a very HCOL area. We definitely could be more frugal, and I’d like to think we will be when we have more time and aren’t paying for convenience as a dual-career household with sprogs. Our top ticket items are housing ($5k mortgage, insurance, tax) followed by daycare ($3k).Interesting to think about being at $4k/month if we didn’t have a mortgage or daycare.....that isn’t our life though. I can’t imagine spending $10k a month as a single person not in a HCOL. I have to say, your budget has to be pretty damn spendy to make my household look frugal in comparison.

[JLE1990]

IIIRC MMM spent $80k last year so sounds like it's pretty reasonable to me as far as comfortable lifestyles go.

It specifically says they aren't interested in being frugal. Why can't you guys accept that?

The reason I have such a hard time swallowing this argument is that the amount spent ($4000/mo in a non-HCOL area) exceeds the median budget for a solidly middle class family.  This is for one person. If we accept anything under $4000/mo for a single person as extreme frugality we're basically saying that a typical middle class family cannot have a comfortable lifestyle.  I call BS on that notion - in part because my family spends substantially less each month and we live what I'd consider a very comfortable lifestyle.

IMO $4k/month income is on the low end for middle class for a family with little in the name of savings. In most areas that is going to put you pretty close to paycheck to paycheck. Nowhere did anyone say under $4k is EXTRMEME FRUGALITY, now you are just making stuff up.

You got that wrong - it's not income, it's spending. $4k/mo spending = $48k/year.  To equate that to a working household, that's Income - (taxes + retirement contributions + savings).  To keep it simple let's just talk about singles here.

An individual (single filer) earning $72k/year and contributing *only* $458/mo to his/her IRA would have a monthly take-home of about $4k/month*

The argument being made is that this person is somehow living the bare minimum for a comfortable lifestyle.  That's where I call BS. This hypothetical individual earns more than ~59% of households. By definition that's middle class (slightly above, given the percentile and the single status).

*taxes on a $72 income would roughly be: -$913federal/372FICA/87Medicare/162State.

I'm not sure why you are bringing savings into this. Someone who has retired and is now living off of the income is no longer saving.

We save around $12k/month. When we retire will we have to include that in our monthly budget? No of course not. Don't be obtuse.

Because this is a prototypical budget for someone earning $72k per year.  They pay taxes, they (hopefully) put at least something away as savings.  What they are left with is what they spend. 
In case you missed it, the 'bare minimum' budget being discussed is akin to a single person earning $72k/year. 
I reject the notion that we should consider such a person living a lifestyle which is the bare minimum to be comfortable. That's contrary to my own experiences and this forum and the fact that he/she would be well above the median household income.

Of course you wouldn't include the $12k/month. If you wanted you could take a hypothetical individual earning $85k/year but saving $17.5k in retirement accounts.  Or you could use an individual making $67k/year and saving absolutely nothing (spending his/her entire paycheck each month().  None of those incomes should be considered the bare minimum to live a comfortable lifestyle in a non-HCOL area.

Dude you've lost me. The retired guy living his life pays minimal taxes and saves nothing. He's not taking $72k out of his account every year. Just drop it.

You are missing the point - you insist that a decent life requires a $4k/mo spend. That's more than the median household income if every penny was spent and nothing was saved. Basically, according to you the median household is unable to live a decent lifestyle even if they spend every penny they earn.

People on this forum disagree with your minimum standards for a "decent" lifestyle, and your lack of comprehension does not render the point invalid.

All of this^^^. While @inline five may feel $4k/month is the bare minimum for a decent retired life that is not the case for everyone. Like others I would find it extremely difficult to spend $4k/month in retirement - especially in my case where I retired having a paid off house in coastal SoCal with a newish paid for car (and a few expensive toys too) and no debt. I lived on about $1500/month with about $500 of that going to pay for COBRA (apparently the guys in.the article don't plan to have health insurance) another $500 - $700 to cover everything else and some left over for fun. I lived a pretty awesome life and still do on a low amount. Everyone is different and what one person considers to be too low of an income for their ideal RE,  might be just the right amount or much more than needed for others.

Sent from the beach on a beautiful sunny day while eating fresh strawberries after playing volleyball. Time to ride the bike home. Yeah my low FIRE income  life sucks ;-). Oh yeah and its mid day Tuesday. Hope I'm giving a few low income mustashian FIRE inspiration (I'm not gloating! Really! ;-)

I hate you! But only because of jealousy. That sounds really amazing. Do you do any travelling??

[DreamFIRE]

You can make up all the bullshit and logical fallacies that you'd like but if you are spending 4k/mon and you are a normal single or married person, YOU ARE LIVING AN ABSURDLY LUXURIOUS LIFE!

But it doesn't change the fact the article is wrong and insane and spending $50k/year is insanely luxurious and still more than the net income of an entire family...

You are missing the point - you insist that a decent life requires a $4k/mo spend. That's more than the median household income if every penny was spent and nothing was saved.

I'm spending <$1600/mo on average now as a single guy living in my paid-for house, but I was planning for $4K/mo when I FIRE to allow more travel and such with the additional free time.  Perhaps I need to cut back my planned FIRE budget down to $3K/mo.  I've never been known for living an insanely luxurious lifestyle, so $4K/mo might be overkill.

[DreamFIRE]

You are missing the point - you insist that a decent life requires a $4k/mo spend. That's more than the median household income if every penny was spent and nothing was saved. Basically, according to you the median household is unable to live a decent lifestyle even if they spend every penny they earn.

People on this forum disagree with your minimum standards for a "decent" lifestyle, and your lack of comprehension does not render the point invalid.

All of this^^^. While @inline five may feel $4k/month is the bare minimum for a decent retired life that is not the case for everyone. Like others I would find it extremely difficult to spend $4k/month in retirement - especially in my case where I retired having a paid off house in coastal SoCal with a newish paid for car (and a few expensive toys too) and no debt. I lived on about $1500/month with about $500 of that going to pay for COBRA (apparently the guys in.the article don't plan to have health insurance) another $500 - $700 to cover everything else and some left over for fun. I lived a pretty awesome life and still do on a low amount. Everyone is different and what one person considers to be too low of an income for their ideal RE,  might be just the right amount or much more than needed for others.

Sent from the beach on a beautiful sunny day while eating fresh strawberries after playing volleyball. Time to ride the bike home. Yeah my low FIRE income  life sucks ;-). Oh yeah and its mid day Tuesday. Hope I'm giving a few low income mustashian FIRE inspiration (I'm not gloating! Really! ;-)

I'm not sure if I would call myself low income, but you are still inspiring to me.

[BookLoverL]

Look, you can carry on spending 4k a month if you want to. It's just amusing to me (and probably some others) that you think you need that to be comfortable. I mean, it would be comfortable, but I've found it's not necessary to spend that much to be comfortable. For instance, I actually prefer cooking at home (which is cheaper ingredients-wise) because I find that with not all that high a level of cooking skills, home cooking is already better than 80% of what I could get in restaurants. In fact, if I have to eat at a restaurant because I'm on holiday or out with friends or something, I often experience disappointment because I could have made a better quality whatever-it-was at home. And once you are FIRE, of course you have plenty of time to cook, so that is no longer a factor. ;)

As well as some things that are actually better in the cheaper version, there are also issues which aren't really BETTER, but for which you might find you are actually comfortable with the cheaper version. If you systematically try some experiments of going without or downgrading various perceived "necessities" for 30 days each, you might find that life without them wasn't that bad after all, and even continue after the experiment period.

To be honest, I think all people REALLY need to be bare minimum comfortable is shelter and clothing that keeps out the weather and keeps away bugs and pests (and this could even be a temporary shelter like a tent), enough varied and tasty food to fulfil their calorie and nutrient requirements without having to be counting how much food is left all the time, and some good company. I admit that a lot of people aren't ready for this level of living, though - I have more than that myself. But if push came to shove and I needed to give up the books and the internet and the other luxuries, I think I could do it.

[jeroly]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

1.  The parsing of what the author meant by 'bare minimum' is silly.  It's rather obvious that the author isn't approaching the definition the way that, say, the US poverty line is defined, but a threshhold for an 'acceptable' level of comfort FOR THE AUTHOR.  That probably means having a car or paying for taxis / zipcars, buying prepared foods not buying in bulk, having home entertainment options like cable TV and good internet, living in an unshared, 'class A'-type residence, etc.  It's great that some of us have modified our hedonic tone to not 'need' some or all of these things, but that's besides the point.

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

Healthcare is now on the order of $850/month if you don't get it through your employer or the ACA. 

Transportation costs are upwards of $325/month (buying a $20,000 car once every 15 years is $110/mo., insurance $80, gas $40, maintenance/registration/licensing $80, occasional taxis-buses-subways $15). 

Utilities including internet (50), phone (50), electricity (50), TV and streaming video (50) comes to $200/mo.

Per Gallup, the typical American spends about $300/mo on food. 

The above costs add to $2863/month.  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

3. I live in a HCOL city (DC) and find myself spending around $7-8K/mo.  The extra $4K/mo is broken down into:  extra rent $2K/mo, extra travel $750/mo, extra entertainment $600/mo., 'toys [electronics like new PCs] $400/mo, add'l. charity $250/mo.

4.  Since I don't have childcare expenses, I don't think I could spend more than $10K/mo without it actually becoming work to figure out how to spend it.  I don't like first class travel (the people who use it generally annoy me), don't want a Lamborghini, don't want to go clubbing several times a week, don't hire prostitutes or consume expensive drugs, and don't want a full-time staff.

4a. When I first started working 37 years ago, I was told that the top people in what was then my profession made $70,000 a year.  I remember thinking at the time 'I would never need more than that!  That would be a super luxurious lifestyle.'  In current dollars, that would be $189,000 which corresponds to a take-home pay after taxes of about $124,000- or about $10K/month.  It's comforting to see that, despite my having much more income than I did back then, my hedonic tone is about the same!

[Milizard]

You had me until this:

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

And especially this:

  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

[Davnasty]

You had me until this:

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

And especially this:

  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Maybe they celebrate Christmas every month?

[Davnasty]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

1.  The parsing of what the author meant by 'bare minimum' is silly.  It's rather obvious that the author isn't approaching the definition the way that, say, the US poverty line is defined, but a threshhold for an 'acceptable' level of comfort FOR THE AUTHOR.  That probably means having a car or paying for taxis / zipcars, buying prepared foods not buying in bulk, having home entertainment options like cable TV and good internet, living in an unshared, 'class A'-type residence, etc.  It's great that some of us have modified our hedonic tone to not 'need' some or all of these things, but that's besides the point.

Debating the meaning of bare minimum is silly but I'm not sure why that's even part of the conversation. The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending. Some of us agree, author's definition of bare minimum is absurd. Others are defending his opinion. But still others are defending his definition based on the fact that it is his definition, that's what I don't get.

If we can defend someone's opinion by saying "but it's their opinion and they made that clear" who are we ever going to make fun of?

[JLee]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

1.  The parsing of what the author meant by 'bare minimum' is silly.  It's rather obvious that the author isn't approaching the definition the way that, say, the US poverty line is defined, but a threshhold for an 'acceptable' level of comfort FOR THE AUTHOR.  That probably means having a car or paying for taxis / zipcars, buying prepared foods not buying in bulk, having home entertainment options like cable TV and good internet, living in an unshared, 'class A'-type residence, etc.  It's great that some of us have modified our hedonic tone to not 'need' some or all of these things, but that's besides the point.

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

Healthcare is now on the order of $850/month if you don't get it through your employer or the ACA. 

Transportation costs are upwards of $325/month (buying a $20,000 car once every 15 years is $110/mo., insurance $80, gas $40, maintenance/registration/licensing $80, occasional taxis-buses-subways $15). 

Utilities including internet (50), phone (50), electricity (50), TV and streaming video (50) comes to $200/mo.

Per Gallup, the typical American spends about $300/mo on food. 

The above costs add to $2863/month.  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

3. I live in a HCOL city (DC) and find myself spending around $7-8K/mo.  The extra $4K/mo is broken down into:  extra rent $2K/mo, extra travel $750/mo, extra entertainment $600/mo., 'toys [electronics like new PCs] $400/mo, add'l. charity $250/mo.

4.  Since I don't have childcare expenses, I don't think I could spend more than $10K/mo without it actually becoming work to figure out how to spend it.  I don't like first class travel (the people who use it generally annoy me), don't want a Lamborghini, don't want to go clubbing several times a week, don't hire prostitutes or consume expensive drugs, and don't want a full-time staff.

4a. When I first started working 37 years ago, I was told that the top people in what was then my profession made $70,000 a year.  I remember thinking at the time 'I would never need more than that!  That would be a super luxurious lifestyle.'  In current dollars, that would be $189,000 which corresponds to a take-home pay after taxes of about $124,000- or about $10K/month.  It's comforting to see that, despite my having much more income than I did back then, my hedonic tone is about the same!

You could drive a Lamborghini if you wanted to, just take that $25k/year you spend on entertainment/toys/travel and buy a Gallardo every 3-4 years instead!

[jeroly]

You had me until this:

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

I'm fascinated to hear what your issue is with the above.

  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Birthday and Christmas presents for 6 relatives and friends at $50/each.

I personally hate to clean but like a clean house, and at $120/cleaning every three weeks that's about $180/mo.  Luxurious perhaps (although my lower-middle-income parents also used housecleaners regularly), but absurdly so? Hardly.

In any event, even if you don't give anybody any presents ever, and let the filth build up, the rest of the budget is still $3723 which is in the neighborhood of $4k, so what's your point about not 'ha[ving] me' anymore?

[HBFIRE]

Jeroly really hit the nail on the head.  Summed up my thoughts much more eloquently.

[the_fixer]

The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending.

Nope, sorry I did not post it to make fun of the author's opnion but the responses that followed have been interesting.

I posted it because it made me laugh, reading the comments, level of spending and thought to myself that this has to be satire for a minute then thought that if bazarro world's did exist this would be the MMM bizarro world.

I posted it because I thought others might find humor in it as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[the_fixer]

https://youtu.be/CRdOOAq36oU

https://youtu.be/Z_ybfbDejNU

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Davnasty]

The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending.

Nope, sorry I did not post it to make fun of the author's opnion but the responses that followed have been interesting.

I posted it because it made me laugh, reading the comments, level of spending and thought to myself that this has to be satire for a minute then thought that if bazarro world's did exist this would be the MMM bizarro world.

I posted it because I thought others might find humor in it as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'm confused, it made you laugh but you are not "making fun" of them? Maybe we have different meanings for that term. If you're not laughing with them, you're laughing at them.

Maybe I'm confused because I didn't actually read the article. That makes me a bad commenter, but I refuse to give clickbait my valuable clicks!

[JLE1990]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make. You can't see that you're wasting tens of thousands of dollars every year because it seems normal to you. You've had 37 years of hedonic adaption to make spending 80k!!! a year seem like a normal amount. It's really almost sad how much people can get used to wasting fucking mountains of money and think it is normal. I've seen it happen with my brother, I went to visit him and in a couple days we spent my entire budget for the month(I told him about MMM so fingers crossed!).

If you look at the spending in the U.S(that's a developed nation right?) the median income for the highest earning period in the median person's life is 59k. That means you are spending almost 1 1/2x what some people will ever make in a year. There is no specific definition of absurdly luxurious, but I'm pretty sure shit like that would qualify. And congratulations that you haven't spent $189k in a year while there are people with multiple kids making less than a tenth of that, want a gold star?
On a more conciliatory note we all have dealt with hedonic adaption at some point and if you want to keep spending that much and it's not trapping you in a lifestyle of debt and you're still retiring early than good for you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is normal or expect anyone else too either.

[the_fixer]

The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending.

Nope, sorry I did not post it to make fun of the author's opnion but the responses that followed have been interesting.

I posted it because it made me laugh, reading the comments, level of spending and thought to myself that this has to be satire for a minute then thought that if bazarro world's did exist this would be the MMM bizarro world.

I posted it because I thought others might find humor in it as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'm confused, it made you laugh but you are not "making fun" of them? Maybe we have different meanings for that term. If you're not laughing with them, you're laughing at them.

Maybe I'm confused because I didn't actually read the article. That makes me a bad commenter, but I refuse to give clickbait my valuable clicks!

The artical made me laugh as in comedy, if you go to a comedy club are you making fun of the comedian or laughing at the material being presented.

It was silly as in a skit from Saturday night live, as I went through it I envisioned Chris farley and David Spade  up on stage pretending to be cool wall street BROkers.

I suppose if it was intended as a serious artical on fi maybe my laughter is displaced and I really was making fun of them now I feel bad...


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[nereo]

The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending.

Nope, sorry I did not post it to make fun of the author's opnion but the responses that followed have been interesting.

I posted it because it made me laugh, reading the comments, level of spending and thought to myself that this has to be satire for a minute then thought that if bazarro world's did exist this would be the MMM bizarro world.

I posted it because I thought others might find humor in it as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'm confused, it made you laugh but you are not "making fun" of them? Maybe we have different meanings for that term. If you're not laughing with them, you're laughing at them.

Maybe I'm confused because I didn't actually read the article. That makes me a bad commenter, but I refuse to give clickbait my valuable clicks!

The artical made me laugh as in comedy, if you go to a comedy club are you making fun of the comedian or laughing at the material being presented.

It was silly as in a skit from Saturday night live, as I went through it I envisioned Chris farley and David Spade  up on stage pretending to be cool wall street BROkers.

I suppose if it was intended as a serious artical on fi maybe my laughter is displaced and I really was making fun of them now I feel bad...

Interesting.  So yhe article is either satire or Serious.
If the author intended the article to be taken seriously, at which point you are laughing at him or her, or he/she intended it to be satire.  I believe it is the former, but if it happens to be the latter then the people who are being made fun of are those that read it and think "yup, this seems about right".

Either way you seem to be laughing at somebody.

[jeroly]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make. You can't see that you're wasting tens of thousands of dollars every year because it seems normal to you. You've had 37 years of hedonic adaption to make spending 80k!!! a year seem like a normal amount. It's really almost sad how much people can get used to wasting fucking mountains of money and think it is normal. I've seen it happen with my brother, I went to visit him and in a couple days we spent my entire budget for the month(I told him about MMM so fingers crossed!).

If you look at the spending in the U.S(that's a developed nation right?) the median income for the highest earning period in the median person's life is 59k. That means you are spending almost 1 1/2x what some people will ever make in a year. There is no specific definition of absurdly luxurious, but I'm pretty sure shit like that would qualify. And congratulations that you haven't spent $189k in a year while there are people with multiple kids making less than a tenth of that, want a gold star?
On a more conciliatory note we all have dealt with hedonic adaption at some point and if you want to keep spending that much and it's not trapping you in a lifestyle of debt and you're still retiring early than good for you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is normal or expect anyone else too either.

The budget that I was discussing was the $4k/month budget (which was bullet item #2.), not my personal budget which was bullet item #4.).  I recognize that I'm living large.

Rather than discussing your impressions of my hedonic tone, I'd be interested in hearing what in the approximately $4k/mo budget put forward in my point #2, is 'absurdly luxurious.'

Moreover, when you write 'Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make' you are essentially saying that I and many of the other posters here are unreasonable, basically because we disagree with you.  That's not the stuff that discussions are made of.

[the_fixer]

The way I see it, OP posted the article to make fun of the author's opinion of what constitutes comfortable and other levels of lifestyle based on spending.

Nope, sorry I did not post it to make fun of the author's opnion but the responses that followed have been interesting.

I posted it because it made me laugh, reading the comments, level of spending and thought to myself that this has to be satire for a minute then thought that if bazarro world's did exist this would be the MMM bizarro world.

I posted it because I thought others might find humor in it as well.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I'm confused, it made you laugh but you are not "making fun" of them? Maybe we have different meanings for that term. If you're not laughing with them, you're laughing at them.

Maybe I'm confused because I didn't actually read the article. That makes me a bad commenter, but I refuse to give clickbait my valuable clicks!

The artical made me laugh as in comedy, if you go to a comedy club are you making fun of the comedian or laughing at the material being presented.

It was silly as in a skit from Saturday night live, as I went through it I envisioned Chris farley and David Spade  up on stage pretending to be cool wall street BROkers.

I suppose if it was intended as a serious artical on fi maybe my laughter is displaced and I really was making fun of them now I feel bad...

Interesting.  So yhe article is either satire or Serious.
If the author intended the article to be taken seriously, at which point you are laughing at him or her, or he/she intended it to be satire.  I believe it is the former, but if it happens to be the latter then the people who are being made fun of are those that read it and think "yup, this seems about right".

Either way you seem to be laughing at somebody.

I am ok with that, I would rather laugh vs take it too seriously and debate the meaning of enough.

After all how much is enough? Some people would laugh at my enough from both ends of the spectrum some saying it is outlandishly high and others that I will be living like a bum.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[JLee]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make. You can't see that you're wasting tens of thousands of dollars every year because it seems normal to you. You've had 37 years of hedonic adaption to make spending 80k!!! a year seem like a normal amount. It's really almost sad how much people can get used to wasting fucking mountains of money and think it is normal. I've seen it happen with my brother, I went to visit him and in a couple days we spent my entire budget for the month(I told him about MMM so fingers crossed!).

If you look at the spending in the U.S(that's a developed nation right?) the median income for the highest earning period in the median person's life is 59k. That means you are spending almost 1 1/2x what some people will ever make in a year. There is no specific definition of absurdly luxurious, but I'm pretty sure shit like that would qualify. And congratulations that you haven't spent $189k in a year while there are people with multiple kids making less than a tenth of that, want a gold star?
On a more conciliatory note we all have dealt with hedonic adaption at some point and if you want to keep spending that much and it's not trapping you in a lifestyle of debt and you're still retiring early than good for you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is normal or expect anyone else too either.

The budget that I was discussing was the $4k/month budget (which was bullet item #2.), not my personal budget which was bullet item #4.).  I recognize that I'm living large.

Rather than discussing your impressions of my hedonic tone, I'd be interested in hearing what in the approximately $4k/mo budget put forward in my point #2, is 'absurdly luxurious.'

Moreover, when you write 'Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make' you are essentially saying that I and many of the other posters here are unreasonable, basically because we disagree with you.  That's not the stuff that discussions are made of.

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

[jlcnuke]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

[nereo]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

I think this may be where the discussion has gone off the rails.  It's this very behavior (spending as much or more than you make) that we label 'consumer-sucka' behavior and precisely the trap we encourage people to get out of.
Just because people feel like they are just scraping by on a $70k/year job doesn't mean that more money will solve their problem. It's their behaviour and their attitudes towards money which are the cause of the problem. As such, a conviction that one cannot lead a comfortable lifestyle is what people are taking issue with here.

[Milizard]

You had me until this:

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

And especially this:

  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Maybe they celebrate Christmas every month?

Lol

[Davnasty]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

Based on this statement I guess when you say "normal" you mean "normal level of spending relative to income". Others seem to assume you mean "normal level of spending for all people regardless of income".

Maybe "normal" was never the right word for this discussion. Perhaps "reasonable" or "justified" would work better?

Regardless I think you have equated "comfortable" with having all or almost all of the things you would like to have. My definition of comfortable would be having enough to buy groceries, shelter in a safe and sound building, safe transportation, and enough saved that I can cover unexpected expenses like medical bills. I enjoy spending money on alcohol and vacations but I don't consider it part of being "comfortable".

ETA: Oh, and your statement that vacations aren't "comfortable" unless you're going somewhere like Paris or Bali for at least a week is the kind of thing that's gotten people worked up. I don't even know what to say to that one.

[Milizard]

You had me until this:

2.  The current median rent for a 1BR in Baltimore, a typical non-HCOL city, is $1188/mo. (Yes, one can find a cheaper (e.g. studio) apartment, or share an apartment - folks even used to use the 'hot-bed method' where two or three folks would share the same bed but use it in shifts to match their work schedules - but most Americans might, I believe, not consider those as providing an 'acceptable level of comfort.' 

I'm fascinated to hear what your issue is with the above.

  If you add in $250/mo. for travel, $400/mo. for all entertainment [including newspapers & books, dining out (including lunches out, Starbucks etc.), and movies/plays/concerts], $200 for housecleaning, $100 for gifts, $100 for charity, $10 for clothing, and $100 for miscellaneous, that brings you to $4023 which to me is close enough to $4k not to quibble.

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Birthday and Christmas presents for 6 relatives and friends at $50/each.

I personally hate to clean but like a clean house, and at $120/cleaning every three weeks that's about $180/mo.  Luxurious perhaps (although my lower-middle-income parents also used housecleaners regularly), but absurdly so? Hardly.

In any event, even if you don't give anybody any presents ever, and let the filth build up, the rest of the budget is still $3723 which is in the neighborhood of $4k, so what's your point about not 'ha[ving] me' anymore?

RE:  Rent for a 1 bedroom  I think perhaps Baltimore may be more HCOLA than you realize.  I'm in a pretty low COLA.  Rent for a 1 bedroom here runs from about $450 to as high as $865 per month for the newest, fanciest place in town.  We're talking comfortable, not luxury, though, so we'll say $700 for a decent place.  Surprising or not, you can rent entire houses with > 1 bedroom for about the same as the higher end here.  My PITI on an entire`1,700 sf house in a great neighborhood, school district is $810/month.  But, this is a LCOLA, so I looked at a MCOLA nearby.  Add about $100 there.

Gift fund: 6 people * 2 events @ $50/pop = half of the $100 /month that you were saying.   

IMO, as a member of a 4 person household, 2 of whom seems their mission is solely to make messes, in a 3 bed, 1.5 bath home on a 1/4 acre lot, getting a housecleaner as a younger single person in just a 1 bedroom apartment is absurdly luxurious.  I'll give you that, if you're working long hours and make good money or limited some other capacity, it can be completely justifiable.  But that is much more than just a "comfortable" standard.

So, I took off about $550-650/month with those 3 items, I do think your travel and entertainment budgets are high too, considering single status vs. multiple people, but that can vary widely.

[JLE1990]

(I find this discussion rather amusing, by the way!)

2a.  While there are certainly ways that one can economize in the budget put forward above, it's hard for me to see how it is 'absurdly luxurious.'  Perhaps when one compares it to spending of the typical African or Asian, but not to spending in a developed nation.

Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make. You can't see that you're wasting tens of thousands of dollars every year because it seems normal to you. You've had 37 years of hedonic adaption to make spending 80k!!! a year seem like a normal amount. It's really almost sad how much people can get used to wasting fucking mountains of money and think it is normal. I've seen it happen with my brother, I went to visit him and in a couple days we spent my entire budget for the month(I told him about MMM so fingers crossed!).

If you look at the spending in the U.S(that's a developed nation right?) the median income for the highest earning period in the median person's life is 59k. That means you are spending almost 1 1/2x what some people will ever make in a year. There is no specific definition of absurdly luxurious, but I'm pretty sure shit like that would qualify. And congratulations that you haven't spent $189k in a year while there are people with multiple kids making less than a tenth of that, want a gold star?
On a more conciliatory note we all have dealt with hedonic adaption at some point and if you want to keep spending that much and it's not trapping you in a lifestyle of debt and you're still retiring early than good for you. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is normal or expect anyone else too either.

The budget that I was discussing was the $4k/month budget (which was bullet item #2.), not my personal budget which was bullet item #4.).  I recognize that I'm living large.

Rather than discussing your impressions of my hedonic tone, I'd be interested in hearing what in the approximately $4k/mo budget put forward in my point #2, is 'absurdly luxurious.'

Moreover, when you write 'Exactly the point that every reasonable person on this post has been trying to make' you are essentially saying that I and many of the other posters here are unreasonable, basically because we disagree with you.  That's not the stuff that discussions are made of.

I'm not in the same position as you in life so I would not be able to say what is reasonable for certain things; home repairs for example. I would go over to case studies and post your budget there. They probably will rip it apart but it is worth getting an articulate third-person perspective on your budget. You don't have do everything suggested but it's definitely worth it to see where things are in extreme excess.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/case-studies/

[HBFIRE]

RE:  Rent for a 1 bedroom  I think perhaps Baltimore may be more HCOLA than you realize. 

$1100/month for a nicer apartment is nowhere even close to a HCOLA.  HCOLA's are ~ 2K a month+  and many times north of 3K.  Baltimore is pretty low on the big city list in terms of living costs. 

I don't find jeroly's figures to be outrageous for someone who is FI and defines those expenses as comfortable.  Of course it would be if one were still building their portfolio, but I don't see anything wrong with those figures in FI.  Some people like some minor luxuries in retirement, that's how they define comfortable.  For example, I'm a foodie, and I wouldn't be happy without being able to eat at nicer restaurants in my retirement -- it brings a great deal of pleasure for me.   I also enjoy quite a bit of travel overseas and for bridge tournaments.  Because of this we built a bigger stache for retirement.  It's a very personal choice, and people are trying to judge it on an absolute scale.

[jlcnuke]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

Based on this statement I guess when you say "normal" you mean "normal level of spending relative to income". Others seem to assume you mean "normal level of spending for all people regardless of income".

Maybe "normal" was never the right word for this discussion. Perhaps "reasonable" or "justified" would work better?

Regardless I think you have equated "comfortable" with having all or almost all of the things you would like to have. My definition of comfortable would be having enough to buy groceries, shelter in a safe and sound building, safe transportation, and enough saved that I can cover unexpected expenses like medical bills. I enjoy spending money on alcohol and vacations but I don't consider it part of being "comfortable".

ETA: Oh, and your statement that vacations aren't "comfortable" unless you're going somewhere like Paris or Bali for at least a week is the kind of thing that's gotten people worked up. I don't even know what to say to that one.

See, there's a massive disconnect. As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the basic income needed to pay for the base necessities to get by with sans comforts. Certainly far from "comfortable".  Trying to compare something like the author's definition of comfortable (as they specifically called out, with examples including vacation spending iirc) with your definition of "justified" spending is an exercise in futile comparisons. Of course they're never going to come close to matching up since they don't come anywhere close to agreeing with the basic terms being used.

As was mentioned earlier, perception is reality. The person who's never slept indoors will find a tent comfortable. The person who's only ever slept in a tent would find a tiny studio apartment to be extravagant. The person who's only ever had a tiny studio apartment might find a 2,000 sq ft home outrageously opulent. The person who's lived in a 2,000 sq ft home since birth, however, would find the studio apartment to be a significant inconvenience and a tent for living accommodations to be an absurd thought experiment in how destitute people must suffer.

Put another way, the summary I get from this thread right now is that the author said "this is what blue looks like" and a bunch of people are yelling "that doesn't look anything like yellow!".

[Davnasty]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

Based on this statement I guess when you say "normal" you mean "normal level of spending relative to income". Others seem to assume you mean "normal level of spending for all people regardless of income".

Maybe "normal" was never the right word for this discussion. Perhaps "reasonable" or "justified" would work better?

Regardless I think you have equated "comfortable" with having all or almost all of the things you would like to have. My definition of comfortable would be having enough to buy groceries, shelter in a safe and sound building, safe transportation, and enough saved that I can cover unexpected expenses like medical bills. I enjoy spending money on alcohol and vacations but I don't consider it part of being "comfortable".

ETA: Oh, and your statement that vacations aren't "comfortable" unless you're going somewhere like Paris or Bali for at least a week is the kind of thing that's gotten people worked up. I don't even know what to say to that one.

See, there's a massive disconnect. As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the basic income needed to pay for the base necessities to get by with sans comforts. Certainly far from "comfortable".  Trying to compare something like the author's definition of comfortable (as they specifically called out, with examples including vacation spending iirc) with your definition of "justified" spending is an exercise in futile comparisons. Of course they're never going to come close to matching up since they don't come anywhere close to agreeing with the basic terms being used.

As was mentioned earlier, perception is reality. The person who's never slept indoors will find a tent comfortable. The person who's only ever slept in a tent would find a tiny studio apartment to be extravagant. The person who's only ever had a tiny studio apartment might find a 2,000 sq ft home outrageously opulent. The person who's lived in a 2,000 sq ft home since birth, however, would find the studio apartment to be a significant inconvenience and a tent for living accommodations to be an absurd thought experiment in how destitute people must suffer.

Put another way, the summary I get from this thread right now is that the author said "this is what blue looks like" and a bunch of people are yelling "that doesn't look anything like yellow!".

Base necessities for survival include food, water, and debatably, shelter. If you mean base necessities for something other than survival, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Base necessities for some unknown point between survival and comfort?

Not my take on it. The author said "this is how I define comfortable" and a whole bunch of people are yelling "your definition of comfortable is ridiculous".

Blue is objective. Comfort is subjective.

[JLE1990]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

Based on this statement I guess when you say "normal" you mean "normal level of spending relative to income". Others seem to assume you mean "normal level of spending for all people regardless of income".

Maybe "normal" was never the right word for this discussion. Perhaps "reasonable" or "justified" would work better?

Regardless I think you have equated "comfortable" with having all or almost all of the things you would like to have. My definition of comfortable would be having enough to buy groceries, shelter in a safe and sound building, safe transportation, and enough saved that I can cover unexpected expenses like medical bills. I enjoy spending money on alcohol and vacations but I don't consider it part of being "comfortable".

ETA: Oh, and your statement that vacations aren't "comfortable" unless you're going somewhere like Paris or Bali for at least a week is the kind of thing that's gotten people worked up. I don't even know what to say to that one.

See, there's a massive disconnect. As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the basic income needed to pay for the base necessities to get by with sans comforts. Certainly far from "comfortable".  Trying to compare something like the author's definition of comfortable (as they specifically called out, with examples including vacation spending iirc) with your definition of "justified" spending is an exercise in futile comparisons. Of course they're never going to come close to matching up since they don't come anywhere close to agreeing with the basic terms being used.

As was mentioned earlier, perception is reality. The person who's never slept indoors will find a tent comfortable. The person who's only ever slept in a tent would find a tiny studio apartment to be extravagant. The person who's only ever had a tiny studio apartment might find a 2,000 sq ft home outrageously opulent. The person who's lived in a 2,000 sq ft home since birth, however, would find the studio apartment to be a significant inconvenience and a tent for living accommodations to be an absurd thought experiment in how destitute people must suffer.

Put another way, the summary I get from this thread right now is that the author said "this is what blue looks like" and a bunch of people are yelling "that doesn't look anything like yellow!".

I can see we are getting no where in this discussion. I would like to point the number we are debating was 4k/mon. That was described as bare minimum by the author. Bare minimum is not subjective, if you are able to eat enough food to not go hungry, have a bed that is not infested and an apartment that doesn't have mold or other unhealthy conditions, than you have achieved bare minimum. An argument can be made for owning a low cost reliable car. EVERYTHING after that is a luxury, it doesn't matter what pompous shit you're used too, a human can survive just fine with those things I just described(most people in the world would consider all of those luxuries). Assuming surviving is the bare minimum, those things are it. Altogether what I just described would cost you about 1400+/- a month. That is not relevant to HCOL vs LCOL because if you live outside the city you are saving on rent and driving into town and if you live in the city you can find an lower end apartment so that you don't need a car. You can debate whether that number is a couple hundred higher or lower depending on extreme circumstances but that number is no where near 4k. End of debate.

As far as what is comfortable, there are two definitions of comfortable, one being "providing physical ease or relaxation" which would be covered under the bare minimum, the other being "as large as needed or wanted." By this definition you could theoretically spend 1mil a year and not be comfortable. As such it's pointless to even consider that definition because it is as you said, subjective.

If you're FI and spending 1mil doesn't ruin you than great. But that's not normal (normal being what the majority of people do, as per the definition of normal...), that would be absurdly luxurious. You have more purchasing power spending just 80k a year than some of the richest people on the planet did a century ago. Besides environmental impact there's really nothing wrong with it so go right ahead. But pretending that much is "normal" when it is not by any metric shows a break in logic teetering on delusion.

[jlcnuke]

We think you're unreasonable because you feel that spending the entirety of a median household income for a single person is normal.

A single person making the income of a median income household in the US is more likely than not spending practically all of their take home pay, would you agree with that statement? In my experience (and based on objective facts and statistics available), the vast majority of people in this country spend what they earn, just about all of it if not more.

Based on this statement I guess when you say "normal" you mean "normal level of spending relative to income". Others seem to assume you mean "normal level of spending for all people regardless of income".

Maybe "normal" was never the right word for this discussion. Perhaps "reasonable" or "justified" would work better?

Regardless I think you have equated "comfortable" with having all or almost all of the things you would like to have. My definition of comfortable would be having enough to buy groceries, shelter in a safe and sound building, safe transportation, and enough saved that I can cover unexpected expenses like medical bills. I enjoy spending money on alcohol and vacations but I don't consider it part of being "comfortable".

ETA: Oh, and your statement that vacations aren't "comfortable" unless you're going somewhere like Paris or Bali for at least a week is the kind of thing that's gotten people worked up. I don't even know what to say to that one.

See, there's a massive disconnect. As far as I'm concerned, what you described is the basic income needed to pay for the base necessities to get by with sans comforts. Certainly far from "comfortable".  Trying to compare something like the author's definition of comfortable (as they specifically called out, with examples including vacation spending iirc) with your definition of "justified" spending is an exercise in futile comparisons. Of course they're never going to come close to matching up since they don't come anywhere close to agreeing with the basic terms being used.

As was mentioned earlier, perception is reality. The person who's never slept indoors will find a tent comfortable. The person who's only ever slept in a tent would find a tiny studio apartment to be extravagant. The person who's only ever had a tiny studio apartment might find a 2,000 sq ft home outrageously opulent. The person who's lived in a 2,000 sq ft home since birth, however, would find the studio apartment to be a significant inconvenience and a tent for living accommodations to be an absurd thought experiment in how destitute people must suffer.

Put another way, the summary I get from this thread right now is that the author said "this is what blue looks like" and a bunch of people are yelling "that doesn't look anything like yellow!".

I can see we are getting no where in this discussion. I would like to point the number we are debating was 4k/mon. That was described as bare minimum by the author. Bare minimum is not subjective, if you are able to eat enough food to not go hungry, have a bed that is not infested and an apartment that doesn't have mold or other unhealthy conditions, than you have achieved bare minimum. An argument can be made for owning a low cost reliable car. EVERYTHING after that is a luxury, it doesn't matter what pompous shit you're used too, a human can survive just fine with those things I just described(most people in the world would consider all of those luxuries). Assuming surviving is the bare minimum, those things are it. Altogether what I just described would cost you about 1400+/- a month. That is not relevant to HCOL vs LCOL because if you live outside the city you are saving on rent and driving into town and if you live in the city you can find an lower end apartment so that you don't need a car. You can debate whether that number is a couple hundred higher or lower depending on extreme circumstances but that number is no where near 4k. End of debate.

As far as what is comfortable, there are two definitions of comfortable, one being "providing physical ease or relaxation" which would be covered under the bare minimum, the other being "as large as needed or wanted." By this definition you could theoretically spend 1mil a year and not be comfortable. As such it's pointless to even consider that definition because it is as you said, subjective.

If you're FI and spending 1mil doesn't ruin you than great. But that's not normal (normal being what the majority of people do, as per the definition of normal...), that would be absurdly luxurious. You have more purchasing power spending just 80k a year than some of the richest people on the planet did a century ago. Besides environmental impact there's really nothing wrong with it so go right ahead. But pretending that much is "normal" when it is not by any metric shows a break in logic teetering on delusion.

No, reread the article. It was the "bare minimum for a COMFORTABLE life.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk