Comment by FooBarBizBazz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FooBarBizBazz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Financial security in the Bay Area requires a house there ($2-3M, nowadays) plus $COST_OF_LIVING/4%. This is easily $5M net worth. It's in "two Googlers and a successful exit at some point earlier" territory.

Granted, this threshold is less than $10M, but it isn't orders of magnitude less

All of which is to say that it is basically impossible to stay in the Bay long-term unless you make an absolute fuckton of money.

Well, you do have two other options.

One is to commute in 2hr or more every day. Which a lot of service workers have to do.

The other is to share a house or apartment with roommates (if you're single) or with another family (surprisingly common, because what else can you do?).

These are both lifestyle decisions that differ substantially from what most people think of as "normal", past your 20s.

What I'm saying is, merely living a "normal middle class" lifestyle in the Bay requires absurd money. So I can understand why people act like absurd money is normal.

You don't have to live in the Bay Area. You don't have to commute since they were talking about retiring with $42 millions.

Fair. Anybody with $42M has it made, anywhere.

You don't need $5M to be "safe" in the Bay Area. You do need some money - enough to afford to get a mortgage on a place to stay - but once you get past that, things get easier. The thing is, it takes money to start making money. It takes money to start to be able to afford the things that will make your cost of living go down. It does suck, but it's not $5M.

I used to work in car sales in the bay area. Basically every car salesman and every mechanic at a franchise car dealership owns a home. Maybe they drive 30-75 minutes to work, but they are 25-35 and own a home in California. The older ones own a home within 15 minutes of their job.

That they bought themselves? What's the cheapest home available within an Hour of SF, 500k or more? Do you really think a car salesman barely pushing 100k a year can swing that? Or are you implying that car salesman in the Bay are making top 1% salaries?

I wasn't talking about car salesman that work in SF proper. Yes, 1 hour from there is basically still pretty expensive. But if you can work anywhere 30 minutes outside SF, and then live another 45 further, you own a home. And yes any decent car salesperson is making $100k. I made on average $250k but I was a bit better than top 1%, and I know a few that made more. I suppose you could say I only socialize with high performers. Sure every car dealer also has a few people that struggle to pay their apartment rent. The industry is setup for an good salesperson to support a family. If you can outperform average by 2x, which is possible if you're really on it, you can make 2x+ that amount. Same applies to mechanics that are good at their craft.

If you put $5M in index funds, you’d grow it by about $400k a year (8%) on average, to start. It’s hard to imagine going broke with that by doing “normal middle class” things. For added security, one could add in a part-time job.

8% is extremely optimistic. 4% is more like it, maybe even 3.5%. I'll use 4% for what follows. That's $200k. Take out 20% LTCG, now you're at $160k.

Rent is like $3k/mo, so $36k/yr. Say you have modest living expenses of another $34k/yr. Now you're at $70k/yr to break even. That leaves you with $90k to save/compound.

So, ok, you're doing very well as a renter with $5M invested, even in the Bay Area. And, given that you have more than twice the income you need, you'd probably be ok with only $2-2.5M. As in, breaking even with passive income.

Which would work so long as you don't want to own a house, and so long as markets don't melt down. That extra security seems to cost extra.

9% is the long term annual return of the stock market over the past century.

Sure, but if you retired in 1997 to live off the interest on an investment in the S&P 500, by 2008 you'd have made an annual return of... 0%.

If you used cromd's figures of $5M in funds and lifestyle expenses of $400k/year you'd have spent ~80% of the principal (although you'd probably have reigned in your spending unless you were mad)

A boat doesn't just need to survive the harbour's average water level - it needs to survive low tide and high tide.

4% is the historical number you could take out for expenses in the worst case scenario. IMO it’s not pricing in modern existential threats, such as a war that crosses the ocean, or existing regulatory differences that make it more difficult for larger firms.

Yeah, maybe 4% is all one could manage to withdraw to survive the longest downturns. I haven't dug into that much. But, people are maybe debating different things - some are likely talking complete early retirement whereas my comment was more about "financial security" (or at least the claim it's "basically impossible to stay in the Bay long-term unless you make an absolute fuckton of money").

For me, financial security means something more like: money will be low on my list of problems. I could get more money by turning my attention there. I might have to work, but it could be some low-stress job, and losing it isn't a big deal. I could afford extra care for an elderly parent. I won't be knocked out by most random things that pop up, specific to my personal life, though I can't control what happens to my country etc.

For some, it means they don't have to work at all, and can't be ruined by market downturns that last decades. And further for some others, it means they can survive wars and societal collapse.

I think both are valid to wish for, though at a certain point it's a burden on yourself to control things you can't control. If there's a 1.1% chance of widespread nuclear war in our lifetime, and you want to be 99% certain your lifestyle won't take a hit, one needs to save and spend a ton to be able to weather it all.

financial security is subjective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com