[hoelle]

They got married and have kids.

Imagine a tech couple earning >$400k, combined income after tax about 20k a month. Awesome right?

Now they need a house with square footage for kids to play and sleep, a home office, and close enough to downtown to maximize family time.

That housing runs at least 5k/mo. A nanny is another 5k. Add in food, bills, transportation, a few yearly trips to see grandma, another 5k.

Said couple might be saving 50k/year. Great! And after a few frugal years together that makes a 10-20% home down payment and they can start their family.

But even though they're both well paid, they're really twice as vulnerable. Either one losing their job puts them at a rapid household burn rate.

Something will have to give. The Nanny loses their job, trapping one parent into a caregiving role. Or they can no longer afford flights to see family. Etc.

[emodendroket]

I think you are rounding up a bit with those numbers... anyway, when I look around where I live I see people are just outright mismanaging their money with frivolous luxury items, very expensive cars, etc., for... what reason? To maintain an image? I'm not sure exactly. But I think an honest account would have to say that it's not just how hard it is to live (if it was what about the vast majority of people who aren't making that kind of money and do have a family, are they wizards?).

[Apocryphon]

> when I look around where I live I see people

That's not even anecdata, that's just first glance impressions!

[Gud]

What makes you think it's all frivolous? "luxury items", e. g. nice things, are nice to have. what's wrong with that?

[jackvalentine]

> What's wrong with that?

Nothing’s ‘wrong’ with it but it does make it hard to empathise with someone who subjects themselves to that lifestyle then worries about being laid off.

From some people’s perspective a pricey depreciating car just represents a choice to shorten your runway if things go wrong.

[emodendroket]

Well, a few things. First, the premise that luxury items have more utility is one that doesn't always hold up (unless we count, as Veblen does, advertising a higher place in the social hierarchy through the things we own as a form of utility but I think this is dubious in a spiritual sense). Second, I think the joy of owning each individual fine item is lessened by buying many of them indiscriminately. Third, the financial stress I see this put on people -- difficulty, despite high income, paying basic bills or building any kind of savings -- cannot possibly be offset by that.

[hoelle]

> what about the vast majority of people who aren't making that kind of money and do have a family, are they wizards?

I have a large extended family who all make far less than me. Yes, they have plenty of kids, too.

Their secret is living outside of a tech hub, and near family. It takes a village to raise a child. Their village is free, mine isn't.

> when I look around where I live I see people are just outright mismanaging their money with frivolous luxury items

No offense, but you're either a robot or a sociopath. "Frivolity" is often what motivates humans to get out of bed and go to work, rather than sink into something like substance abuse.

I, personally, budget about $10k/y for motorcycles and art, which are definitely frivolous personal pleasures that don't directly benefit my family. Except it brings me joy, and who knows how productive or alive I'd be without it.

[emodendroket]

OK sure I’m a sociopath for not buying a Mercedes and an Hermes handbag for my wife. And guess what lots of people live even in expensive cities without making $400k. Go look up median incomes in major cities. You’ll be surprised.

[hoelle]

A luxury car or bag doesn't move the needle much, both can also be had for 10k/y. And both of those items hold some value in the event they'd need to be resold. They're far less "frivolous" than something like a nice vacation.

Hoard your treasure in a cave like a dragon if you choose, but spitting on others for finding a different balance is definitely unempathetic.

[emodendroket]

I'm sorry but if your income is well into the six figures there's a lot of room between "hoarding" your money and never spending any on anything fun and spending it so freely that you create unnecessary financial distress for yourself. If you think 20 grand a year is "nothing" then I guess you're not so bad off after all.

[hoelle]

Yes. Recall my original point is explaining how high earners can still be anxious about layoffs. Even if they have been balancing family, fun, and savings... a layoff would likely mean 6-24 months of job searching. We would survive, but as those months go on, we'd have to make deeper and more painful cuts our lifestyle.

We are very privileged to have the money for a nanny. Having to let go of a wonderful employee and friend is itself worth plenty of anxiety.

And we're lucky enough to be citizens. Plenty of folks in our situation aren't.

[helmholtz]

Mr Joe Hypothetical and Mrs Jane Hypothetical here need a good deal of FacePunches™ and a strong dose of MrMoneyMustache: https://mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adapt...

[charlie0]

People should live within their means. That means not spending so much of their income that being unemployed for a few months threatens their entire lifestyle.

[grioghar]

Means don’t care about home repair, particularly foundation repair, new windows to remove draftiness, and siding repair all hitting around the same time, draining your savings right when layoffs start occurring.

We do quite well, living well within our means, allowing us to be able to cover these types of big once-in-a-home owner’s lifetime surprises, but a layoff could mean we’re simply making the place nice for the next folks while we bail out to find something new.

Life ain’t cheap and the social safety net has been used and abused to the point bad timing can destroy everything you’ve worked for with one unexpected meeting with HR on some random Tuesday.

[Apocryphon]

Maybe housing in tech hubs shouldn't cost $5k a month.

[hoelle]

Perhaps. Or perhaps our socioeconomic systems shouldn't be so insanely misaligned with the literal continuation of our species.

Fertility rates and birth defects forced our hand. Saving longer just raises your chances of holding nothing but blood and ashes at the end.