[tsunamifury]

If you're living in run-down conditions when you are earning enough to still be saving and living in decent conditions somewhere else -- you're fooling yourself. Likely your swanky tech job is netting you relatively less than you think.

[nostrademons]

Curious about your logic there? My experience has been the opposite - it's the folks who live in run-down conditions and save 50-80% of their income for decades that end up with a $5-10M net worth, while folks who live comfortably all that time leave this world with maybe a couple hundred K.

[tsunamifury]

Whats the point of dying with $10m?

What I meant is, if you are doing well you can both have nice place to live AND save. You aren't not doing well if you have to pick one or the other. Many techies seem to misunderstand their actual relative wealth in the area. Below $250k/y is lower middle, 500K/y+ is middle and 1M/y+ is upper. But everyone acts like their 300k/y makes them pocket rich while they live in a hovel.

[nostrademons]

1.) Not ever having to worry about not having enough money.

2.) Living knowing that you produced more than you consumed.

3.) Passing it on to your kids.

Anyway, from personal experience - living below your means doesn't mean deprivation. It means deciding what you actually want and not buying into all of the messages society sends you about what you should want. Usually you can get what you actually want for a small fraction of a tech-worker's salary, and then once you do that, why give the rest to somebody else?

[pianom4n]

Save a lot and retire comfortably somewhere else after 8-10 years?