[FrustratedMonky]

OK. Guess I read it opposite. Your wording of choice, seemed to imply there was a choice. I missed a negative, so you are saying, a lot of people do NOT have a choice.

I guess then, I agree. A lot of people have very limited choices, and in tech we have slightly more choices. I'd just disagree with the degree of choice. In Tech we have more choice, I'd say that isn't much more. If there is some arbitrary scale of choice, from 0-100, and most people have 10% of choice, and in tech we have 20%, that is still at the bottom. When you get outside of SF, there is a vast world of tech, where tech people are not rich, and they are slugging away making ends meat like everyone else. Generally better off, but I'd say a really long way from being able to make a choice to retire early.

It's kind of like the scene in Game of Thrones where they are arguing about slaves having a choice, and Tyrion is saying slaves have a choice, meaning that they can commit suicide. So yes, we all have a choice.

[hn976827]

> In Tech we have more choice, I'd say that isn't much more.

Ok. Then our main disagreement is whether a household income of $400k grants significantly more freedom than a household income of $150k. I'd argue that it indeed does.

[FrustratedMonky]

See that is the disconnect. Who in tech has a household income of 400K except for the rarefied top people at a FAANG. I'm saying that is like <5% of total Tech workforce. The argument isn't between 400K and 150K, it is between 150K and 70K. There are a vast number of people in tech at <100K$. So who making 100K can retire at 50. It is possible with the right choices to live very minimally to the point where you could argue it isn't really a choice. The real misunderstanding is the number of people that think Tech=400K.