Hacker News Reader

My favorite quote from the article:

> There are a lot of ways to be frugal, but you can start with driving older (paid-off) cars and tracking your expenses to ensure that your family spending aligns with your values and goals.

So I guess being "frugal" means that you track your expenses and not live beyond your means?

I caught that too, words cannot express my distaste for that kind of mentality. It's unfortunate that normalcy to the author is not keeping track of finances and buying things you cannot afford.

> I grew up (and now live) in rural Appalachia... In most areas of the U.S., a six-figure household income is enough to have a warm place to live and healthy food to eat..

I completely agree with everything you wrote. I grew up in a rural community, too. I see how DINKs overspend on things they "need" all the time.

However, something you're missing is the safety premium. Often it's not possible to live modestly in a safe, clean neighborhood with good schools within a reasonable commute distance of work (especially if both spouses work).

The long-term answer might include more telecommuting so people can live in Appalachia and still be productive, but that requires a big cultural shift and doesn't help all jobs and careers.

I agree with you. But with many people, I would classify the safety premium with the other things that those people "need".

When I first arrived in Austin a few years ago, so many yuppies told me to NOT go east of I35. They were paying outrageous sums of money (actually quite tame by San Francisco standards) to live far from the side of town they perceived as dangerous.

However, once I became acclimated to the city, I realized that they were blowing a lot of smoke due to irrational fears. The east side was certainly more diverse. It wasn't as white-washed as the west side of Austin. It has more graffiti and was generally poorer. But, it was not dangerous.

Again I'm making some pretty broad brush strokes. I realize that other places have dangerous neighborhoods and many cities have a legitimate need for a safety premium. My main point is that for many people, the necessity of the safety premium is perceived unjustly.

I share the same sentiment regarding prejudice and snobbery. But safety and cleanliness are certainly needs. I think they are taken for granted by rural folks who don't really have neighborhoods as such so they they can (for the most part) trivially avoid crime (don't hang out with meth heads and drunks).

In urban areas, price and crime rate are inversely correlated. See also commute times and school quality. Usually the heads of households have to make significant trade-offs to save money on housing (usually the single biggest budget item). Not that they don't in rural areas, but the tradeoffs are of a completely different kind (access to high speed internet, paved roads, cell phone reception, downwind from a hog farm, etc.).

This comes up a lot. Sometimes they talk about a car, for a while there it was always a "plasma tv". Financial advisors, talking about middle class debt and financial struggles, would ask you, do you really need that "plasma tv".

San Francisco is probably an outlier, but with the median house price at 1.1 mil, and full time child care costs for two preschool kids at $40-50k a year, a plasma tv is a minor rounding error in the cost of living.

So while I agree with you about the TV, and the car, and the consumerism in general, I do think it may be a way to blame the middle class for not paddling hard enough toward shore as the ocean current carries them out around the rocks.

San Francisco, Manhattan, D.C. -- they're all outliers. My great-aunt runs a day-care facility in Kentucky. They charge $200/month/child. (This is definitely an outlier on the other end of the spectrum)

It's very difficult to talk about wealth, as wealth means different things in different places. My argument for a $100k/year salary being "rich" falls apart in expensive cities.

True, but keep in mind, 100k is a lot easier to achieve in those cities. Registered nurses and dental hygienists (and software developers), who all earn about 110k a year (median) in SF, tend to fall well below that threshold outside these centers.

Hygienists make 110K in SF? Do you have data to support this? These seem like outlier numbers to me even in a place like SF.

it surprised me too.

http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dental-hygienist/s...

Personally, I'm glad dental hygienists make enough money that, with two incomes, they can live a middle class life where they work. But it really does put that "critical shortage of software developers" at an average of $110k a year in SF in perspective.

> My argument for a $100k/year salary being "rich" falls apart in expensive cities.

The vast majority of jobs that pay $100k/year are in expensive cities, so you can't just ignore the expensive cities.

> a plasma tv is a minor rounding error in the cost of living.

Also true compared to college tuition, bills for problem pregnancies, and other major medical events including the last two or three years of life.

It's probably time to admit that the child tax credit hasn't been keeping up with the cost of living and needs a major adjustment.

There is little clear thought about the range of options in major expenses. Most feel intuitively the range of "not enough" vs. "not necessary" without giving it the contemplation it deserves. For example, we wanted features in rental living space commonly only found in condos or more expensive rental property.

We prioritized and ended up cutting almost 40% off our rental costs and got every feature we needed and wanted most (e.g. on a park, in-home washer/dryer, corner unit, two-story floor plan, super-close parking, neighborhood living near freeway, etc., etc.)

We gave up a lot of square footage (but met all storage space needs). Lower rent was a predicting factor that maintenance would be poor (but it's not terrible), neighbor likeability varyies more than we would prefer, etc. But it really feels like a complete win.

Managing smart auto maintenance in part by using mechanics on JustAnswer has allowed similar savings for our vehicles.

The article lists factors such as inflation, geography (the coasts are more expensive), kids, and healthcare, but not underlying reasons.

Some people want larger homes, more cars, bigger lifestyles (over-the-top weddings as an example), communication and entertainment (expensive cable, internet, and phone providers, just to start). And the allocation or misallocation of resources within the health "care" system is another reason that average income doesn't seem enough.

The few tips at the end -- live modestly, save a lot, and don't get hung up on status -- are barely a start.

The goal of "living the dream" is left unexamined or unquestioned.

"...is enough to have a warm place to live and healthy food to eat, with enough left over to provide security during times of famine"

That's a great definition of being middle class. I'd argue being rich involves having far more resources than that.

That's a fair point and I understand why you'd argue that.

However, you'll notice that most people consider rich to be "having more than what I have" or "having more than other people". Many millionaires don't think themselves wealthy -- and they're not necessarily wrong. They've reached a point where many of their peers have more capital than they do. Others may consider them "poor".