Hacker News Reader

I think MMM knows his audience, it isn't for me but I can imagine many people do get something out of it.

Really the main problem is there just isn't much to say, spend less than you earn, invest the difference, develop some self-sufficiency.

I didn't know what "spend less than you earn, invest the difference, develop some self-sufficiency" meant 15-20 or so years ago though, they were just words. I didn't know what a 401(k) was, I didn't know what an IRA was, I didn't know what a brokerage account was, I didn't know what a mutual fund was, I didn't know what an ETF was, I didn't know what "equity" meant, I only had a vague idea of what investments were, I didn't even know what the stock market was other than "its something to do with money."

Plus that advise isn't applicable to everyone. A college student doesn't have the same finances as a dual income couple in their 30s with two kids. Someone with a $70k income has much different prorities than someone with a $30k income. I think finances is a journey, not a destination.

I think one of the first tenets of financial freedom/independence is figuring out life priorities, not everyone is going to have the same spending because everyone really enjoys different things. Oftentimes people don't even know what they really enjoy and where their spending brings them most life satisfaction so it requires a lot of self reflection and communication/negotiation with family members and maybe questioning cultural norms and expectations. I don't think that financial independence/frugality should about hording money so much as it should be about making your money work for you in the most optimal way possible.

There's also nuances to discussions about money like how it affects interpersonal relationships (and not just romantic ones) and the psychological aspects of money and spending.

You have a good point about him "know[ing] his audience" though, so thank you for pointing that out.

All those things you didn't know are irrelevant if you spend more than you earn, this is the situation most people are in. It applies whether you are a student or coming to the end of your career. Most people need to absorb that simple message.

I personally enjoy his style. MMM is clearly a character that he plays and is deliberately provocative. There are other more level headed financial independence blogs out there but I don't find any of them as entertaining as MMM.

> I have experience being both very high income and very low income.

See, I could do the same thing, but the blog would really boil down to a single post - "stop fucking around and just learn web dev." I really don't see a more accessible route to go low income to high income.

MMM does have this:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/07/25/50-jobs-over-50000...

Web dev is great for a lot of people, perhaps not for everyone.

As for MMM is general, I personally love his style. I remember back in grad school, I stumbled upon his blog, I think from an HN comment. I was hooked. I read through years of blog posts in a few months. I probably factored heavily into my decision of not going for the PhD (stopped at MASc).

Although I still think he makes a lot of good points, my take on frugality and my personal finance goals are a bit more, um, nuanced these days. For anyone who'd be interested in a quick intro to his core ideas, I highly recommend this 28 min talk, it's a really fun watch:

https://vimeo.com/183016901

My comfort zone with regard to frugality is much less extreme than MMM's. Probably nearer Dave Ramsey's part of the spectrum.

I like the MMM blog because it's a good source of concepts/tips to try, but you don't have to treat it like gospel. For example, the DIY home maintenance and investing tips resonate with me, but the "rewards credit card" not so much.

Also, doesn't take into account healthcare costs and things like hurricanes and floods and disasters that afflict a lot of people.

> Also, doesn't take into account healthcare costs

See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/11/01/our-new-237-per-mo... and http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/17/its-all-about-the-...

"Third level of safety: optional part-time work."

Don't you find it hilarious that a blog on financial independence tries to talk about safety nets vs. risks and devolves to: Well, sh*t just get a job I guess, but call it optional because you are "retired"? I do.

It is how you end up with 80 year old wal-mart greeters.

> Don't you find it hilarious that a blog on financial independence tries to talk about safety nets vs. risks and devolves to: Well, sh*t just get a job I guess

Not at all. If you retire early, one of many backup and contingency plans, somewhere down the list, could very well be "I could always go back to work". Doesn't mean you aren't retired.

It's hard to effectively criticize consumer culture without sounding hostile to consumers. It would be worse for his persuasiveness to err on the side of appeasing the dominant cultural sentiment.

He has several rentals and lives off other families. We can't all do that. It's not a real, scalable solution. It's not genuine.

Personally, I find rent-seeking landlords to be an unethical pursuit. I know that's not a mainstream thought, and is the underpinning of many people's income strategy ... but I can't support the idea of letting a family live in a property for decades, and then something happening, and they're on the street with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have given in rent.

There are plenty of families who have no interest in buying even if they can afford it easily. One doesn't have to prey on the impoverished to have rental income.

A lot of people don't understand the benefits or recognition of money velocity, but are also not privileged enough to care.

It is interesting also to see financially independent people who are happy to rent, keeping their assets in more lucrative and flexible investments than the real estate they live in.

There are lots of reasons to rent. It is generally a mutually beneficial relationship, like pretty much every other business transaction.

What exactly should be the relationship between the person who owns a home and the person that lives in it then? One of charity? Or do you think private home ownership is in and of itself wrong?

There is a position in between "all rental arrangements are okay" and "no rental arrangements are okay".

I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking would have no ethical objection if the landlord charged an amount corresponding to costs of maintaining and renting the house (taxes, upkeep, risk, management, etc). The objection is when a landlord is able to work a few hours a month managing their properties and realize a sizable income.

Rent-to-own arrangements might also be considered ethically acceptable.

I'm not trying to propose a practical policy here, just suggesting some potentially ethical arrangements.

"I think the parent and others that dislike rent-seeking"

Jesus fuck I just wish people would stop throwing that word around trying to sound like economists when they obviously have no idea what it even means. Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

> Renting out real estate is not rent seeking.

While to a certain extent real estate has been transformed into something that, in some cases, approximates a commodity, it is historically the canonical non-subsitutable monopolized good where each item lacks perfect substitutes, which is why “rent-seeking” is literally named after what landlords do. Renting out real estate is the “trope naming” instance of rent-seeking.

ok, then perhaps I should say, "seeking rent for long periods of time on a necessity, with no exchange of value in the long term for the person paying"

exactly this ... there needs to be a discussion about what the right balance to strike is. Rent-to-own would be a fantastic thing to be more popular (especially if you can take your equity with you when you leave ... even if only a portion of it, so that renting/risk still has rewards (yes I realize this arrangement probably isn't common (if at all), but it should be)).

The reason to rent is for the ability to move on demand.

If a family is renting in the same place for decades, that is their problem. The moment you realize you are going to stay in one place for an extended period of time, there is no reason to continue renting. Sure, not everybody can purchase their dream home. But they can purchase something small, build equity, and upgrade in the future. The government also has programs to help first time buyers, especially those with less income.

Again, the primary reason to rent is so you can relocate. If you are not planning on relocating in the 5-10 years, you should own, or be working on owning.

Furthermore, the landlord is taking on risk (risk of the market moving against him, risk of the tenant not paying him or the place remaining unoccupied after a tenant leaves), is paying property taxes, insurance, is responsible for broken appliances, and is also often taking on a loan with higher interest rates.

Should all of this be provided for free?

Renters are also borrowing the credit score and down payment of the landlord.

Yes, but it should be temporary (to be ethical) ... if a single entity is a long-term tenant, that should be proof that they are a responsible, and should begin to accrue equity in the asset they are paying tons of money into.

"You should own," no, everyone is different.

Many people have no interest or ability to take care of a property. I watched my grandparents' house deteriorate and literally fall apart from neglect. [I used to think the roof leaking when it rained was a totally normal thing] They had literally every appliance in the house break over the years but they didn't have the wherewithal to replace anything so they just went without. They lived in total squalor for years, it was depressing (as well as very dangerous) visiting. If code enforcement stopped by they'd be homeless.

For sure, there is many, many benefits to owning, I love being a homeowner (most of the time - though I did get a little sticker shocked at my first 4 figure repair bill), but don't believe for a second "everyone should own."

I don't disagree with your broader point. But I would point out that owning doesn't need to mean owning a standalone house. In addition, in general, renting starts to become problematic at some point in life where being forced to move because the landlord sold the property becomes a really unpleasant situation.

Condos are another can of worms.

I just very briefly touched on one issue with owning and why it may make sense for someone to rent for years (even if it might not be financially optimal[1]).

Books could be written about the topic.

The main takeaway is "everyone is different." And "one size does not fit all." Remember, many businesses still choose to rent over buying.

[1] plus you only truly know in hindsight what was truly financially optimal

>don't believe for a second "everyone should own."

You really should own if you're going to stay in the same place. If you can't take care of your place, and you rely on a landlord to do it, you're going to be in for a bad time when you have a landlord that doesn't give a shit. Which a lot of them are.

It's common for people to get stuck below or near the poverty line. It's difficult to save for a house down payment (much less build up the credit to get a loan for the rest) when you're struggling to pay for rent, bills, and food. Ignoring this cycle is missing the reality for many, many people.

Absolutely. Some people definitely do have it a bit harder than other people. But, outside of medical/mental issues, or just a stream of bad luck, people generally make it harder on themselves due to certain choices in their life.

My parents came to America without a dollar in their pockets. My dad's income was running a convenience store which barely made enough to pay his bills. So both parents worked, effectively minimum wage jobs, and saved for years so they could build their dream home and send their children to college.

We never went out to eat, rarely went on vacation, and parents don't drink. So, they were able to fulfill their dreams.

When people say they want to own a house, but are unwilling to find a cheaper location, stop drinking, stop eating out, drive older beat-up cars, well, then they've made their choice. The system has its issues, but no one deserves anything, and the system is not the problem here.

How much was land back then? Far less. He'd be in that cycle if he came over now.

You say "outside of ...", as if those things aren't common. So what, a stream of bad luck, or a sickness should relegate you to lifelong poverty?

I invite everyone on this thread to read "The Wealthy Renter" by Alex Avery. Also, no, the primary reason is not so you can relocate. Buying a home could be a very bad financial decision for most people, who don't realize it and just do it because everyone around them tells them to.

That's the deal. I like renting because if I want real estate exposure I could buy a diversified REIT.

I'm with you and need someone smarter to make a better argument against renting than I can formulate on my own. All

What I was taught: Renting is often times optimal, totally fine, the right choice for a lot of people!

What my experience has taught me: Renting is for suckers or the incredibly wealthy that want to be able to move to a new city on a whim. I was a sucker for many years, and paid a very rich man 100k+ for the luxury of paying down his mortage. Never again.

The point is, you've got to think it through and see if it's a good deal for you or not. Right now I own a house worth about 400k. If I rented and put that 400k in stocks history says I'd probably make on average almost 20k per year above inflation. Plus the landlord would pay the 4k property taxes and the new roof ill be doing next year. In my area I could easily rent a similar house for 20k per year. So in my case with the market the way it is right now I might be better off renting.

"I can't support the idea of letting a family buy food for decades, then something happening, and they're starving with nothing to show for the tens of thousands of dollars they have spent on food."

Do you spend as much on rent as you do on food? My mortgage is bigger than food and utilities combined.

Housing is not a perishable resource (to an extent, yes I realize maintenance is a thing). It's not comparable

> maintenance is a thing Yeah, I used to think "home ownership" meant I owned the home, not the other way around.

Speaking as a homeowner, with a garden, fruit trees, and formerly chickens and goats, they're very comparable.

Renting meets the daily housing need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future.

Buying food meets the daily food need, without ownership in the assets that provide for that need in the future.

Alternatively, people could buy land and equipment/building and develop skills to use/maintain them, allowing them to meet their future food/housing needs.

The key element is that people can choose how they want to spend their resources (money, time, and attention). Sometimes buying is better, sometimes renting is. And yes, people do often make decisions that turn out not to have been in their best long-term interest.

I'm sure you have some properties where families can live for free, or at least only have to pay half of the rent? Or you give away interest free montages so they can buy their own place?

If not, what the fuck are you talking about then? Landlords offer a service for money. Since when is that unethical?

People price gouging during disasters is "offering a good or service for money", and it is unethical (and illegal). I propose that long-term gains from a single tenant, without an exchange of value (equity) is unethical. If you own a house, and one person/family has been living there for decades and then have to leave for some reason, they should not be leaving with a zero balance ... they've paid tens of thousands of dollars, and for a landlord to simply take it, and just rent it out to the next schmuck in a few weeks is unethical.

What you propose is not in fact unethical in any way. They offered a good or service for money without gouging and not during a disaster. you aren't getting nothing out of the deal, you got a place to live for decades out of the deal. That was in fact the deal you signed up for, and what was delivered. They offered you a house for X dollars a month, you paid X dollars a month and got to live in said house for the month. When the month is over, you either pay them again or go find a new house to live in. pretty simple really.

He does have rentals. But he doesn't live off that money. He's done income reports (see this one from 2016[0]) that show where the money comes from and where it goes.

[0]: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/