Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxverse | Hacker News Reader

I feel like both the point you quote and your response are valid, and not mutually exclusive. It's great that you were able to avoid lifestyle creep and that $200K felt like a lot of money that "had a huge impact on my later financial condition, and enabled me to do many things". And I think Katrine (from the article) feels like that should be a lot of money. I don't see lifestyle creep playing a role in her life. Instead, another person they quote says:

> [Ms. Gan]she saw the strain on friends who were earning below $200,000, for whom rent, utilities and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in.

View on HN

I don't understand how rent, utilities, and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in unless you're vastly overspending in one category. If she's paying $60k in taxes then she's got $140k left. That's over $10k/mo. How can someone spend that much without lifestyle creep?

I understand that one could feel pinched at that salary, when including saving for down payment, future kids, and retirement. But that's different from saying the basics consume nearly everything.

So, per the article, it is apparently difficult to find a one bed apartment for under 5k a month. Assuming that's true, half her take-home salary going on rent would get her a lot of the way there!

Even if someone were spending $5k on housing, how do you spend $5k on utilities and groceries (not dining out, it says groceries)?

Also, not having a roommate straight out of college is typically a lifestyle bump in itself. Most people have roommates in college, so getting a place solo is an upgrade.

Can it be a case of she's not earning all of the $200k in cash?

It's possible, but that would be a pretty relevant detail to leave out. Someone who's getting paid in carried interest is in a very different boat than a run of the mill employee.

You think someone in California making 200k is paying an overall 30% in combined federal and state taxes? That seems out of touch with reality to me.

I was making a guess based on having earned less and more than that amount. Just checked with ChatGPT and its estimate for a single person with no mortgage interest was $46k in income taxes and $13k in payroll taxes.

4k for rent 3k for retirement

3k for everything else. I’m not going to sit and itemize, but I could very easily see 3k getting eaten (figuratively)

I'm confused about the quote, because the numbers do not add up to me. Elsewhere in the discussion SV apartments are quoted at $3500/month. When I rent, utilities tend to be under $100, and groceries are about $400. Let's be generous and say "utilities and groceries" are $1000. So "rent, utilities and groceries" are $4500/month, at total federal + CA state tax rate of 40% (estimating high), that means $90k/year to break even. I'm not sure what Ms. Gan filtered via the reporter thinks "consum[ing] nearly everything that comes in" means, but lets say 80% of income that's $112k, although that would still be a $20k/yr surplus (and a 5 month cushion). So there's quite a lot of room "earning below $200,000" and financial distress. If the article meant "less than $100k" I could believe it. Or perhaps Ms. Gan's friends' "rent, utilities and groceries" comprises more things than it literally means?

Saving for retirement should be in the list, along with gym membership and entertainment. Transportation. Why is the default budget "rent, utilities, groceries"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com