Hacker News Reader

Comment by xapata | Hacker News Reader

> Unless they are dirt poor, they can probably pay for themselves for most things.

Are you saying $20 for a burger and drink is trivial unless one is "dirt poor"? That doesn't match my estimates of the distribution of wealth in the US, and certainly not the world.

View on HN

No, it wasn’t about the price of a burger. My point was that just because you made a million dollars and your buddy didn’t, don’t start treating him like every simple, common social expense must be a financial burden for him.

> every simple, common social expense

I don't think a $20 burger and drink is a simple, common social expense for everyone. Certainly not on a frequent basis.

OK, forget the price of the burger and look at the actual point they're making.

Isn't the price the point? The question is whether the poorer of the two is comfortable with the expense. At many times in my life, I was the one "not hungry" when invited to a restaurant.

Fine, xapata! Yes, if you suddenly find yourself with a shitload of money, and you have friends who can't pay their bills every month, they have $0.00 in the bank, literally can't afford to ever eat out, and a $20 meal would be a grand expense and a momentous occasion for them... yes, go ahead and offer to pay for those friends every time.

Thanks, I'm glad to have your approval.

If you're curious how I handle those friendships: I invite them to dinner at my place. Much as discussed in the article.

And our friend group periodically chips in a bit so that they can make important purchases, especially health-related ones.

Please tell me one place in the bay area where you can get a burger and a drink for $20?

The correct answer

I picked a random food and $20 as a "small" amount. The burger wasn't the point :-)

I have some friends who aren't comfortable with any out-of-home food expenses. They exclusively cook at home.

TBH I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore.

I sometimes have trouble with message threads, too.

It is, but a $20 lunch should be considered an occasion or treat and not a daily driver. Just because it's not a daily driver doesn't make it trivial.

If most people eat lunch out once a week for $20 - that's about $1000/yr. That's trivial for most people if it's part of their social/entertainment expenses (eg even making $30-40k), but it's okay that it might not be trivial for all people.

I don't think spending an extra $1k per year is trivial for someone making $40k per year.

Non-trivial spending includes expensive mandatory expenses, like rent/mortage, insurance, maintenance, etc.) Spending $20 on a lunch once a week (if that's what I wanted to do) is trivial, both in cost and importance.

Obviously trivial expenses are the first to be optimized away when a budget crunch occurs, because they are also trivial to remove/stop. It's hard to delay rent or a car payment withour real consequences, but there's no real consequence to not eating out lunch anymore.

I interpreted "trivial" as negligible, too small to cut from the budget, even in a crunch. I see you're using a different definition. However, I also think that $40k per year is a perpetual budget crunch, so not really a crunch at all.

Typical lunch in NYC can pretty easily hit $15-20.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com