Hacker News Reader

Comment by mordechai9000 | Hacker News Reader

I think $1M net worth in the US these days is a nice little nest egg, but not anywhere near financial independence. Unless your needs are simple, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply, and you don't have any dependents.

View on HN

People who don't take $1M net worth and use it to secure their simple needs somewhere that they can live cheaply (providing attention rather than financial capital to their dependents) are ironically the reason why $1M net worth isn't anywhere near financial independence. Such people provide an outsize contribution to the bidding-up of costs, because instead of thinking, "This is probably it, I better be careful," they're pushing for the next rung on the ladder and willing to "invest" at high prices, with the expectation of a return.

> Unless your needs are simple, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply, and you don't have any dependents.

As a human, your needs are simple[1]. With a $1M net worth, you can relocate somewhere to live very cheaply. And your dependents can live in that same place, also cheaply.

All you need to do is show the Joneses the door out of your mind and never let them back in, nor look toward their lives in envy.

[1]: Healthcare being a notable potential exception, depending on the individual.

If you have dependents that are children, I feel there is a moral consideration. If you have earned $1M and then take the family to live who-knows-where slowly drawing on that $1M.. will your children be able to replicate your success? Will they be able to earn their own $1M? Or will leading this new life significantly impair their prospects?

To me this is the most critical problem with the "move somewhere crazy cheap" plan. I feel a parent owes their children at least somewhat similar opportunities as they themselves had. If you got to work as "high flying white collar tech worker", but the only option your children have is "subsistence fisherman", you have wronged them.

I think there is room for arguing children raised in the high flying city have been robbed of something as well. Can’t have it all and one is not objectively better than the other if you look at the full picture.

Certainly room for such discussion. However if the parent waits to first save a large sum before moving there (instead of moving there straight out of high school), their revealed preferences suggest even they do not feel the tiny village is great for young people.

I think there's a large middle ground between relocating somewhere undesirable (or to a developing country) just to stretch your money as far possible vs "keeping up with the Joneses".

Even if your goal is financial independence, it's reasonable to not drastically decrease your existing standard of living just so you can retire _now_.

I meant basic financial independence. It gives you the option to live like someone who has the median wage forever, but without having to work. If you work, it's a bonus on top of the $40k you receive annually.

Whatever happens, perhaps AI replacing all cognitive work, you know you'll be fine. Maybe not able to live lavishly, but much better than needing to have a job you hate in order to survive.

You've hit the escape velocity. Worst case scenario (I'm simplifying) is that your NW stagnates, best case scenario is that your NW will continue to grow quickly. That's much better than the worst case scenario being that your unemployed with a zero NW.

Interest would put you around median household income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com