Hacker News Reader

Comment by KyleBrandt | Hacker News Reader

Right. If you get a lot of money it doesn't mean you have to go buy a bunch of crap you don't really want. Rather it can give you influence. You can invest in charities or companies you believe in to shape the future. For example http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-fl...

View on HN

The only amount of money people really need for autonomy is the amount of money it takes to supply their immediate needs and some reasonable wants; the amount of money necessary to provide for a normal middle-class lifestyle. I would ballpark this around $80k/yr. It's not enough to make big donations to candidates, companies, or charities, and it won't buy the most expensive stuff out there, but it's plenty to keep your life running reasonably comfortably.

Big money is a different ballpark and I don't think that's what most people want. I think they just want to be comfortable in doing what they want to do.

Incidentally, isn't $80k around the point where happiness from income levels off?

The advantage of big money isn't just charities and companies - it's having your time back, since you're not tied to getting an income from it.

I feel like $80k must be an outdated number. My wife and I pull in just under $100k together, and we can't even (comfortably) afford a home.

Between rent, student loan payments, health insurance, bills, and car loans, and food, I think we maybe have $500 left to throw around each month. If we were paying against a mortgage, that would basically be zero.

It's definitely outdated, or at least location dependent. The average rent in Manhattan in 2/16 was $3,850. Landlords won't rent to you unless you earn 40x the monthly rent which is $154k. In Brooklyn, the average is $2,716 which ends up being $108,640. (http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report)

Most people don't live in Manhattan or Brooklyn. If you live in a high COL area, adjust accordingly. I suggested using an approximate 2.3x multiplier elsewhere.

The most financially effective way to be a programmer is to work remotely for someone who pays SF or NYC salaries and live in a moderate COL area.

I've always seen the rental income requirement you stated phrased as "monthly income must be at least 3x monthly rent", in case the 40x thing threw anyone else off (40/12=3.33).

> Landlords won't rent to you unless you earn 40x the monthly rent

I've recently seen 45x monthly in Manhattan and LIC (Queens).

The loophole is a sublet where the person subletting (this is probably illegally) assumes the financial and personal risk.

Mortgages are usually cheaper than rents on comparable units. The issue is that they require a big upfront chunk of cash to get into.

And, as a sibling comment stated, it depends on location. I think $80k is right for most areas of the country. If you live in NYC, SF, LA, or another place with really high cost of living, adjust accordingly (which is probably like 2.3x).

There are whole communities of people dedicated to answering this question [1] and most of them seem to think that they'd be content with $40k/year in passive income.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/

>My wife and I pull in just under $100k together, and we can't even (comfortably) afford a home.

You may not be able to afford a house in the area you want, but you can certainly afford a home. Here's one with a mortgage for $89/mo.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/207-1st-Ave-W-Gackle-ND-58...

Did you choose this example randomly, or in homage to our HN moderator?

Location is everything. You can live like a prince in Tennessee or Kentucky on $80k/yr -- not so much in the really prosperous parts of the country.

Where do you live? If you are coming so close to what you make why do you have car loans?

Two people can easily live on $40-50k in most areas. Eliminate all the unnecessary expenses like $150+/m in phone payments, $50+/m for cable, etc.

I assume you're referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract

for the $80k number.

In case you haven't seen it, there's another paper that argues the opposite: more money does make you happier (but only if you know how to use it). http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/danielgilbert/files/if-mone...

I make more than $80k and I can certainly say that I was less stressed before I took a huge pay cut. On the other hand, I like my job more so I guess I might actually still be happier. All else being equal though, if I made more I imagine I would be much less stressed..

You are mixing up the amount of money required to not be worried about money and the amount of money required to just let you do whatever you want. Yes, an 80k salary means you aren't worried about how you will survive, but it still has you tied to a job that will limit your autonomy quite a bit. To achieve the level of autonomy being discussed here, you would need the 80k/yr without any obligations.

I think you have defined autonomy in a very specific way. That is not everyone's goal (what they want control over, or to feel like they are accomplishing).

I think the OP wanted control over building/shipping/creating products. Not life comforts, house, food on the table, free time. His goals would not be helped by a middle-class income, but more control over the products he was building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com