Hacker News Reader

Comment by FrustratedMonky | Hacker News Reader

That was the claim, I was replying to : "Difference is that in tech you can retire with 50. Few people who still work at 70 do so by choice.".

Saying you can retire at 50 if you choose too, and working is a choice, is completely bogus. You are not being nuanced, you are being misleading.

Nobody is retiring at 50 that isn't very well off. Even with a small house, remember, there is covering health insurance, taxes, food. It is well beyond a large percentage of people.

Spinning it as lifestyle choice is not what was being alluded too. Yes, I could choose to live in a small apartment and live on rice, and thus 'retire'. Do you really think that is what the original post was implying.

"Nice place in the countryside and continue with the hobbies ". I just can't believe the levels of disconnection here. It almost comes full circle, I could 'retire' if I would just choose to live on the street, it's totally a lifestyle choice.

View on HN

> Saying you can retire at 50 if you choose too, and working is a choice, is completely bogus. You are not being nuanced, you are being misleading.

Perhaps read again what I wrote. I explicitly stated that those who still work at 70 rarely do this by choice. More concretely, the lady behind the counter at Walmart is 75, and she definitely does not do that job because she loves it so much.

This was to contrast with the comfortable situation that we in tech are in. We can choose to retire early, even if it comes with lifestyle impacts. Not everybody desires a penthouse in downtown. And not living there does not mean you are living on the street.

OK. Guess I read it opposite. Your wording of choice, seemed to imply there was a choice. I missed a negative, so you are saying, a lot of people do NOT have a choice.

I guess then, I agree. A lot of people have very limited choices, and in tech we have slightly more choices. I'd just disagree with the degree of choice. In Tech we have more choice, I'd say that isn't much more. If there is some arbitrary scale of choice, from 0-100, and most people have 10% of choice, and in tech we have 20%, that is still at the bottom. When you get outside of SF, there is a vast world of tech, where tech people are not rich, and they are slugging away making ends meat like everyone else. Generally better off, but I'd say a really long way from being able to make a choice to retire early.

It's kind of like the scene in Game of Thrones where they are arguing about slaves having a choice, and Tyrion is saying slaves have a choice, meaning that they can commit suicide. So yes, we all have a choice.

> In Tech we have more choice, I'd say that isn't much more.

Ok. Then our main disagreement is whether a household income of $400k grants significantly more freedom than a household income of $150k. I'd argue that it indeed does.

See that is the disconnect. Who in tech has a household income of 400K except for the rarefied top people at a FAANG. I'm saying that is like <5% of total Tech workforce. The argument isn't between 400K and 150K, it is between 150K and 70K. There are a vast number of people in tech at <100K$. So who making 100K can retire at 50. It is possible with the right choices to live very minimally to the point where you could argue it isn't really a choice. The real misunderstanding is the number of people that think Tech=400K.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com