This is like "How to have an easy life":
1. Find a way to have plenty of money. 2. ...
Shouldn't be a problem for a large portion of HN's readership. Those who aren't in school or building a company are likely to have a tech job that pays beaucoup bucks.
you have to login to view this link, it's just filtering jobs by REMOTE + $125k+ = 255 startups.
Disclaimer: I'm a sysadmin/devops/infrastructure guy.
This isn't talking about being wealthy - it's about considering alternatives and making good choices - if you can make more than $20k a year.
That's like saying win the lottery. Sure, it could work, but it's a lot of risk and does not scale.
Kids are a choice - but even with kids one can still live frugally or prepared. For example, choosing to not have a child until you've accumulated enough savings to cover all of the extra surprise costs that can occur that most people don't plan for when having a child.
My father worked two jobs to barely make ends meet for 8 years because his financial planning revolved around a family plan that he didn't actually plan for. My family plans are actually planned and revolve around my financial plans. One problem I see people make is that their financial plans revolve around their family plans (or lack thereof).
No surprise child at 18 years of age. No poorly-planned "I think I'm ready but I'm not actually ready" child at 21-23 either. I've seen very, very, very few parents under the age of 25 that a) planned for their child and more importantly b) properly planned for their child.
Lack of planning - or having a poorly crafted plan is what is "risky" or "doesn't scale".
In fact in TFA he says he has a kid.
fixed that for you :)
it's a lot of risk
If something happens then finding a good job when your older and have not worked for a while is hard. So, IMO your better off trying to get a significantly larger nest egg than you think you need. That way compound interst works for you and you don't risk poverty while your old.
That $15k figure includes healthcare paid for and its very possible for a family to raise children on less than $30k combined. Choosing your partner wisely? That's important.
I don't understand your incredulity. People have lived and self-actualized on less than the $15k/yr equivalent forever - when did it become impossible? And why do you think so?
Dave Ramsey says, "Live like no one else, so you can live like no one else." He means, save aggressively and retire comfortably. I was already living like no one else: no car, no concerts, rarely seeing movies or eating out, no fancy clothes, avoiding doctors, less than $15 cell phone plan. And my expenses still exceeded my income. It is not so simple and easy for everyone to have savings.
However, for most of the members of this forum saving half your after-tax income is perfectly reasonable. I would wager that 90% of the people on this forum makes at least 2x the median income for their location (unless you're based in SF).
So for most people on Hacker News, saving half your post-tax income means just means living an average lifestyle at worst.
A lot of people would just prefer to spend that money living in a nice place, and enjoying certain luxuries, but it can definitely be done on the kind of income a lot of HN readers are earning.
Already that's looking far less true if you look at the past decade or two, but it's still the received wisdom because it's what people enjoyed in the past.
The FTSE 100 hasn't peaked much higher than it peaked in 99/00, and in real terms still hasn't closed as high as it did back then.
Since you were careful to talk about nomimal return, this is then further reduced by the effects of inflation. A 5% nominal return might well be easy in an environment with a high inflation rate.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't invest, people clearly should invest as part of a mixed portfolio, and because cash returns are typically even slower, but the original article here is unrealistic as a goal.
Edit: Dividends help too of course, they aren't tracked into the index whereas it is possible to reinvest them back in if you don't take them as income.
I'm not denying that some people can get lucky with market timings and it works out well for them, and in fact there's the whole boomer generation it mostly worked out very well for, but it does no good to the next generation to account it all towards their actions and not account for any kind of good fortune in timing.
The other thing that the frugality and savings über alles crowd neglects to mention is that different people have different preferences (and that's okay!). Including preferences dealing with intertemporal discounting. It's one thing when you are trying to develop pithy messaging aimed at the general public and quite another to make un-nuanced arguments in forums that allow for them.
Using funds with dividends can smooth returns (although not always tax beneficially).