[neospice]

Side question. It seems the conventional advice here is to take the money.

What if it was far less, say half that? How much is too little?

[brianwawok]

So by Mr Money Mustache method, you look at the 4% rule.

1mm = 40k per year forever

2mm = 80k per year forever

3mm = 120k per year forever

4mm = 160k per year forever

Pretty set with anything past 2mm in most of the US, maybe you would want 3 or 4 if you really like SF.

[qaq]

160K in SF right that will take you far

[brianwawok]

It will give you a place to live and food to eat without ever having to do work for money again?

[qaq]

If you have no family sure

[brianwawok]

Not true at all. If you cannot survive on 160k even with a family even in SF, you may want to look at your spending habits.

[jonnathanson]

Let's say I have a child with special needs, be it giftedness or disability. If I want to provide my child with decent care and quality of life in the SF Bay Area, a household income of $160k is going to make things very difficult. Not impossible, but certainly very hard, and likely harder than anywhere else in the country.

In this case my "spending habits," as you put them, might include expenses like routine hospital or clinical bills, specialist care, or some sort of domestic help. Double all of that if my child is physically as well as mentally disabled, or if my child exhibits some sort of prodigy that I want to nurture properly.

You have to remember that the price of goods and services in this local economy is largely driven by those earning some significant multiple of our hypothetical $160,000.

[qaq]

"survive" and comfortably live are fairly far removed concepts

[gk1]

$7m is still more than most people make _in a lifetime_. There's no material difference in quality of life between a net worth of $7m vs $14m.

Even $2m would mean you could take a very long sabbatical then come back and bootstrap your next startup idea.