[rgbrenner]

100k * 10% = 10k/year.

10% is about the best return you can count on (very optimistically) I don't know what country you live in, but 10k in the US, even for a single person, would put you far below the poverty line. No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that. And let's not even talk about all of the other huge expenses that will come up later in your life.

$10m * 3% = $300k/year

That's a high end salary in the US. You could cut this number in half, and that would be ok too IMO. Less than some developers make. But you can buy a reasonable house, car, etc. Not a farrari though, unless you're irresponsible.

If you actually intend to live on this money forever, then the return you receive is really the maximum you can spend. And that's really not as much as you would think. Especially when you figure there will be some years where you won't earn anything (during recessions).

Again, if you live in an expensive country like the US. If you live in a poor country, maybe 10K is enough. But this article and these numbers, aren't really about that situation.

[10122018]

I feel disheartened that you read my entire comment and chose to focus on one number and the ineptitude of my hypothetical investment strategy instead of focusing on the overall point I was trying (and I guess failing) to make. I regret saying anything at all.

For the record, thousands of Australian university students live on less than US$10K per year. You seem to think we can't exist, but we do.

> No way you could afford that dental work after you pay rent on that.

And thanks, that is very helpful of you to remind me.

[rgbrenner]

The number says "a comfortable life". University life is not the entirety of a persons life. And these numbers are for the US anyway, where university isn't free, and that alone would cost you more than $10k/year... in fact, far more than $10k/year.

I think you need to revisit this in 10 or 20 years. I think you'll have a different opinion on this number.

$10k is not comfortable. That is poverty. And the question wasn't what is possible to survive on.

[10122018]

Nowhere have I said that $10K per year is comfortable. I have a dentist appointment tomorrow that I don't yet know how I am going to pay for. I can't remember the last time I got a Christmas or birthday present, or the last time I went on a holiday. It sucks, but there are people worse off than me. And there are three orders of magnitude between $10K and $10M. If anyone thinks they need $10M to feel secure and comfortable, than I honestly feel sorry for them. I think that's the kind of insecurity that would be very difficult to escape. Probably even harder to escape than poverty.

Again, I apologise if my comment/s seem impolite. I am not having a great day, but I don't mean to come across as disrespectful. I understand that I live in a different world to many of the people here on HN. I also think we may be talking past each other a little bit, using different definitions of "comfortable". I think it's possible that I don't know what comfortable is supposed to feel like, at least not the way most people here seem to be using the word. To me, comfortable is just having a loaf of bread in the cupboard, a roof over my head and a healthy body. I feel like that is all I need, and that's the point I was originally trying to make.

[jamesb93]

Similar situation here. I live on 7000 GBP p/a and any other income I can find elsewhere which isn't guaranteed. There was a post on Reddit personal finance sub the other day asking for advice on whether they should leave their 320k USD p/a job for a 325k GBP p/a job as an entry level analyst for a hedge fund. Most people just have no idea what it actually is to live close to poverty and so 10 million is easy to come by as a figure for where you're comfortable. To be honest it makes sick. That said I'm the happiest I've ever been and enjoy being a PhD student. You learn s lot by the constraint of minimal income such as how to cook good food and enjoy life without materialism. Not that I was that way before I started my current programme.

[hueving]

FFS that $10m figure isn't about being comfortable. It's about never having to work again and never having to be concerned about paying for things in an upper middle class lifestyle.

You might be happy as a PhD student, but your housing and life is entirely dependent on the university. You are one academic violation away from that all being in jeopardy.

What happens if you get a spouse and child? Will your current housing and savings be enough to support them and yourself if you both decide you want to stay with the baby instead of working?

What if your government passes legislation that costs you your job, your housing, or your healthcare?

The $10m money is about not worrying about anything other than global economic collapse and/or massive wars.

"Not worrying about money again" means never again. Not just while you manage to hold down a job.

[kaybe]

Y'know, that's what I like about the European social security systems (not all of them of course, but some). It's just that, security. You can be sure you will have healthcare, you will have housing and you will have food, and so will all your dependents. (Ah and of course you will have to fill out a lot of papers and they will bug you to find a job, and your level of living will be at university student level, but still.)

I really like the peace of mind that gives me and everyone, even if that means I have to pay more taxes.

[Applejinx]

Normalizing this need to execute wealth-hoarding as a 'normal life' directly CREATES global economic collapse and massive wars.

[thedufer]

> there are three orders of magnitude between $10K and $10M

Sure, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Almost 2 of those orders of magnitude disappear when you change $10M of assets into a few hundred thousand dollars of annual income.

A lot of the rest goes away when you notice that not worrying about finances "ever again" includes an awful lot of expensive things you don't pay for day-to-day or even year-to-year, such as the dental work you're putting off.

[Namrog84]

> You could cut this number in half, and that would be ok too IMO. Less than some developers make.

I think you might have a bias in your viewpoint here. At half would be 150k/year and is still significantly above what most developers make. And I am assuming only United states.

[sobani]

> Less than some

> above what most

I don't see the contradiction here?

[hoaw]

That only makes sense if you imagine living an entirely different life. What most people need is $1 million in addition to their future normal income. That gives you the opportunities for safety, career advancement and quality of life that you need to have a good version of the life most people are living.

Of course if you don't expect to invest, work or advance everything is going to be have to paid for up front and you will need a lot of money. But that isn't realistic for most people. It is very expensive to be a poor millionaire, but relatively cheap to be modestly wealthy.

[CalRobert]

Am I weird? I spent a year living somewhat frugally (still enjoyed myself, still took a trip now and then) in San Diego and spent about 20,000. That was only my share tbf, my wife covered her half of expenses. We had a flat in a nice neighbourhood, shared an old but decent-condition car, took one trip to New England that year..

We had obamacare which helped a lot.

I see people on HN talking about needing massive amounts of money to live and I just wonder where it all goes? What's it for?

[jgh]

The massive amount of money basically sits in an investment account and generates dividends to live off of. That's what people are talking about. In order to have a salary they're used to they need like 20-30x the cash in the bank to generate it (preferably a bit extra to keep up with inflation too). Otherwise if you weren't using it to do that presumably you'd eventually run out of money and have to go back to work (except now you're old and 30 years out of date)

[CalRobert]

Oh I know, but it seems like I encounter a mindset here that you need six figures forever just to not be destitute. A few days ago a guy posted he had eight million post-tax from an exit and folks were calling it barely enough to retire. Even if you could only keep up with inflation that ought to last 150+ years. Particularly with a paid off house.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> In order to have a salary they're used to

Well there's the problem right there. Your salary should be higher than your cost of living because you're actively trying to save for retirement. Once you're actually retired you shouldn't need as much.

[10122018]

Yes. What has become clear to me in this discussion is that some people, when talking about being "comfortable", are talking about maintaining a much more lavish lifestyle, funded by passive income, than many people like myself, are used to or feel that they need. For many, comfort is simply feeling like they aren't at risk of starving or becoming homeless. That's the definition I'm working with, but it's clear to me that others are talking about something different, as you have articulated in your comment. Thank you.

[icebraining]

I think one of the disconnections here is that you are talking about extra cash (over what you currently earn), whereas rgbrenner (and probably others) are talking about all income.

And I think they have a point: $100k is a lot of money, but what if you got sick and couldn't work anymore, ever? Wouldn't you be at the risk of starving or becoming homeless if you had to stretch that over 30 or 40 years?

[10122018]

> I think one of the disconnections here is that you are talking about extra cash (over what you currently earn), whereas rgbrenner (and probably others) are talking about all income.

Agreed.

> And I think they have a point: $100k is a lot of money, but what if you got sick and couldn't work anymore, ever?

That's a fair point. I don't really worry too much about getting sick and never being able to work again ever. I think some of this comes down to the level of risk that each individual is content to live with. If I had children or a family, perhaps I would be a lot more worried.

[nathan_f77]

The massive amount of money is just to generate investment income so that you don't spend down the principal. People often use 4% as a safe withdrawal rate, but it's much safer to use 3.5% or 3%.

For example, if you wanted to spend $20k per year, then you would need $20,000 / 0.03 = $666,666 invested in index funds.

I'd be happy with something like $40k per year ($1,333,333 invested), or just a SaaS service that provides passive income. Running a business is far riskier, but it also gives you something to do.

And maybe I wouldn't mind having a nice house in an expensive city like New York, Melbourne, Vancouver, etc. $20,000 per year would be nice, but I think $200,000 would be pretty nice as well.

[hueving]

Retirement, buying a home in the bay area, saving for kids college funds.

You're right, spending 40k for a couple is plenty to live on. It's all of the above that sucks up the rest if you want to retire (let alone retire early).

[mrpopo]

Again, being able to live a life of leisure exclusively out of your fortune's interests reaches far higher than "living a comfortable line". You can live very comfortably with a part-time job, or even a full-time job that's not too demanding.

[rgbrenner]

The question says "without thinking about finances again". It is true the number could be lower, but there does need to be some buffer here. Otherwise you're one mistake/accident/recession/layoff away from "thinking about finances again".

[thedaemon]

I don't know why everyone assumes such a low return. I think the term Invest has got everyone confused. Investing $100k doesn't have to be a long term investment like an IRA. You could invest in a startup, invest in the stock market, etc.

Give me $100k and I'll retire within the year. A few smart quick investments can really pan out. It can also fail, as we all should know.

[sneak]

Outline specifically what you would invest it in, otherwise we have no reason to believe you.