[typeofhuman]

I did the same and for around 50% cut. Working from home allows me to spend more time with my kids (I get to have lunch with them and hear them play in the background), no toxic rush hour commute, and I get the comfort of my own space. I know there's a down side of not being able to collaborate as well with my team. But I put my wellbeing over that.

And to be honest, the pay cut - while significant - made no change in my daily life. But the peace of mind and serenity I have retained by WFH is invaluable.

[lolinder]

> And to be honest, the pay cut - while significant - made no change in my daily life.

Yep. Speaking for myself, beyond a certain income threshold there has been no substantial quality of life improvement. My last promotion made it even easier to save for an even earlier retirement, and that's about it.

Early retirement is nice, and earlier retirement is even nicer, but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest. I'll happily delay retirement if that's the trade-off that's needed in order to be there while he's growing up.

[insane_dreamer]

This is a critical point. There seems to be an obsession with “making money so you can retire early” and then what? Your children are grown and left home, you’ve often sacrificed them as well as your own physical and mental health, you don’t have the energy you had in your youth, for what? So you can play golf with other retirees? Or maybe you saved up enough that you can invest in a new startup. Okay fine but that’s not retirement, in fact it may be more work.

[rachofsunshine]

It's odd to me that people think the value in excess wealth is just living on a beach somewhere.

The value in excess wealth is what you can do with it. You can find a person in need and hand them a thousand dollars for fun. You can fund some program your town needs. You can build a "third space" for your community. There's so much you can do with wealth that isn't just hoarding it!

Personally, my goal is to have enough money to buy a giant mansion on the edge of some town and be the weird rich lady you can go to with your problems. If I get richer than that, great! It'll be a bigger mansion and a bigger town. But if you gave me a billion dollars tomorrow, I'd just use it to be a bigger weird rich lady you can go to with your problems.

[insane_dreamer]

You're not considering the opportunity cost to get that wealth. Sometimes you may be lucky enough that there is very little opportunity cost. But most of the time it's considerable.

> be the weird rich lady you can go to with your problems

that's great; but unfortunately in society at large, the people with wealth and the people who you can approach with your problems make a Venn diagram with little overlap

I've found that in most cases, people tend to become more selfish as they get more money, not less selfish. (Not talking about you, just commenting on society.)

[rachofsunshine]

I agree completely. But I feel like saying "if I ever get any wealth or power I'll just be as bad as the people who already have it" is just throwing in the towel. You might as well try!

[hnthrowaway6543]

As with every other person who has wealth, you'd quickly find that the people who go to you with their problems are the ones whose problems would be magically solved if you only gave them a small investment of $10k, maybe $100k if they're bold and daring, but don't worry, they'll pay you back with interest after their business takes off.

Outside of people who crave the fame and/or flaunt their wealth to promote themselves (e.g. Michael Bloomberg), wealthy people do not advertise that they are wealthy, because doing so invites a lot of unwanted attention.

[thanksgiving]

> The value in excess wealth is what you can do with it. You can find a person in need and hand them a thousand dollars for fun. You can fund some program your town needs. You can build a "third space" for your community. There's so much you can do with wealth that isn't just hoarding it!

Thank you for your kindness. However, you can't become and definitely won't stay a billionaire if you give away your money.

In practical terms, you don't want strangers in your home. There are some bad people in this world. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the...

[lazyasciiart]

Yea. The world is full of people who have spare money and bedrooms and won’t use it to help others. Those are the bad people.

[toomuchtodo]

Wealth is a tool. To stay wealthy is an inefficient use of capital considering time value. The only people who want to stay billionaires are those who crave the power and status it brings.

See: MacKenzie Scott

https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/mackenzie-scot...

[insane_dreamer]

Mackenzie Scott is a wonderful, but extremely rare, example.

[fragmede]

Who wants to stay a billionaire? You can't take it with you, and that's an unfathomable amount of money for a single person to have. At a flat 5 percent interest per year, that's $50 million a year, or just under a million per week, or $137k/day. per day! You could fund a third space for quite a while on that and still never run out of money after your ordinary life expenses were paid. Ballooning life costs can still add up as jets and yachts get expensive, but that's still an insane amount of money.

On 50 million a year, you could give out 49,000 homeless people to give $1,000 to every year, and still have a million dollars to spend, without touching your principle. Could you even find 134 homeless people every day to give $1,000 to?

The goal is to Die with Zero, as written by Bill Perkins, and while you may not want to literally do that, it's still a good book to read to get you thinking about how to spend your money.

[rachofsunshine]

> However, you can't become and definitely won't stay a billionaire if you give away your money.

It's very possible that I won't, no. But I also don't think I'm naive.

I run a company. I founded it without funding from venture capitalists, so that no one will ever be able to tell me to sell anyone out. One of the first things I wrote down was that I would never lie, mislead, or otherwise tell anything less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And right now, my company is functioning and profitable, while doing - at least as far as I can tell - no harm to anyone.

Yeah, being a horrible human being means you're free to do everything to your game-theoretic advantage. But you can choose not to do that. You can win without choosing to do that. You just have to know, crystal clear, from day one, that you'd rather make one million dollars ethically than two million dollars unethically.

Similarly, will people sometimes abuse your kindness? Yeah, sure. But you can give your kindness knowing that that's part of the cost of doing business - especially if you're successful enough that you can afford the loss.

You ever read Les Miserables? There's a scene where Jean Valjean, who has been taken in briefly by a kindly bishop, steals some of his valuables out of desperation. He's caught by the police, who arrest him and bring him back:

  “Ah! here you are!” [the Bishop] exclaimed, looking at Jean Valjean. “I am glad
  to see you. Well, but how is this? I gave you the candlesticks too,
  which are of silver like the rest, and for which you can certainly get
  two hundred francs. Why did you not carry them away with your forks and
  spoons?”

  Jean Valjean opened his eyes wide, and stared at the venerable Bishop
  with an expression which no human tongue can render any account of.

  “Monseigneur,” said the brigadier of gendarmes, “so what this man said
  is true, then? We came across him. He was walking like a man who is
  running away. We stopped him to look into the matter. He had this
  silver—”

  “And he told you,” interposed the Bishop with a smile, “that it had
  been given to him by a kind old fellow of a priest with whom he had
  passed the night? I see how the matter stands. And you have brought him
  back here? It is a mistake.”

  “In that case,” replied the brigadier, “we can let him go?”

  “Certainly,” replied the Bishop.

  The gendarmes released Jean Valjean, who recoiled.

  “Is it true that I am to be released?” he said, in an almost
  inarticulate voice, and as though he were talking in his sleep.

  “Yes, thou art released; dost thou not understand?” said one of the
  gendarmes.

  “My friend,” resumed the Bishop, “before you go, here are your
  candlesticks. Take them.”

  He stepped to the chimney-piece, took the two silver candlesticks, and
  brought them to Jean Valjean. The two women looked on without uttering
  a word, without a gesture, without a look which could disconcert the
  Bishop.

  Jean Valjean was trembling in every limb. He took the two candlesticks
  mechanically, and with a bewildered air.

  “Now,” said the Bishop, “go in peace. By the way, when you return, my
  friend, it is not necessary to pass through the garden. You can always
  enter and depart through the street door. It is never fastened with
  anything but a latch, either by day or by night.”

  Then, turning to the gendarmes:—

  “You may retire, gentlemen.”

  The gendarmes retired.

  Jean Valjean was like a man on the point of fainting.

  The Bishop drew near to him, and said in a low voice:—

  “Do not forget, never forget, that you have promised to use this money
  in becoming an honest man.”

  Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of ever having promised anything,
  remained speechless. The Bishop had emphasized the words when he
  uttered them. He resumed with solemnity:—

  “Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good.
  It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts
  and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God.”

[insane_dreamer]

One of my favorite passages in one of my all time favorite books

[grogenaut]

The "then what" is important to figure out and maybe figure out earlier rather than later. Some people don't have an "then what" other than working, they find fulfilment that way, that's fine.

I'm 47 and I'm teasing out what retirement would look like after seeing many people talk about their issues in retiring early and being bored as hell (and knowing many older folks with those problems).

I have a model in my mother who put my dad through law school and then he put her through MBA school, which she didn't actually use. She raised us until my dad passed young leaving her retirement level funds, She then did volunteer jobs like running part of the gift shop at the botanical garden (which had the great side benefit of taking lunch / strolling the botanical garden 4 days a week) and the tougher but much more rewarding Court Appointed Special Advocate work she did where you are essentially stand in legal guardian for children. She had 3 families of children she was working with. Very rewarding and very heart breaking work. Don't get me wrong she also took vacations, bridge, movie club, scuba, painting, sung in choir (I have several official photos of her standing right behind the pope in rome singing which my catholic friends love [my episcopal mom has spent more time with the pope than you have]). Worked her butt off (literally) to be able to handle Machu Pichu for her 70th. Definitely lived a full interesting life, not just on the beach. At her remembrance relatives and friends were a bit shocked at all of the photos I had on the slide show of the things she'd done / places she'd been.

Golf with friends is definitely fun and relaxing and can be done well into your later years, don't knock it but it's not the only thing you'll do. Getting drunk on the beach all the time also becomes harder and not as fun as you get older for many people. But your friends likely don't have all that free time.

One interesting thing I've found recently is some volunteer work in the BLS realm (basic life saving / rescue). Ski Patrol / SAR is an interesting combination of weekend outdoor hobby with goals. And seems to have roles as you age (usually in organizing) though that means you have to deal with older bureaucratic know it alls. But they also organize everything you just show up and do. Folks being pretty active well into their 80s (could be survivor bias).

[insane_dreamer]

All fair points.

There's a lot you can do, especially to use your resources to help others, as your mother did, while also enjoying life.

I wasn't saying early retirement is bad; I'd love to do it myself. But rather the question is, what am I willing to give up to achieve that goal. What is the opportunity cost. Maybe you're lucky and there's hardly any. But often it's your children who pay the price (as in the comment I was replying to). Or you yourself pay the price with suffering from significant stress, anxiety and unhappiness.

Why not enjoy life earlier, and especially with your children, and then just work longer.

I've turned down more money because I knew that it came with strings attached of more work and stress, and I didn't want that for myself or my family whom it would most certainly impact. So, I'll have less money for retirement and I'll have to work a few years longer. But I want to be happy _now_ not just when I'm old.

[grogenaut]

I guess I've been lucky in that the more money didn't cause more stress, about the same actually. And my kid is out of college now tho living with us. So I have loads of free time. Was talking with a former coworker this week who has 6 and 8 year old and is currently taking a work break. We realized that I have about as much free time as he does. So yes I'm talking from a place of privilege. And fair on the tradeoffs.

My point was more about prompting people to start thinking about what they'd want to do in retirement if they even retired. I know quite a few people who don't know what they'd do, so it defintitely seems like a thing you need to figure out. Not a pool to jump into all at once one day.

For me I think it also helps me de-stress the idea of retirement, easing. into it.

[bdangubic]

early retirement is all about being happy now-ish vs. when you are old!

but if price to pay for early retirement is stress/anxiety/unhappiness and ESPECIALLY less time with your children (especially before puberty) no early retirement is worth it

[bdangubic]

retiring early is not a goal only if you define your life through work. there are MILLION other things to do besides “playing golf with other retirees” (though that’s definitely more fun that working in a cubicle.

if your work defines you - great, keep on trucking. but having financial means to not have to work at early age (while you are still youngish and healthy) is probably one of the biggest goals any human on Earth can achieve

[nuancebydefault]

> having financial means to not have to work at early age (while you are still youngish and healthy) is probably one of the biggest goals any human on Earth can achieve

I'd rather just do a job i like to do until i am not able to do it anymore.

I know people who are old and do charity work, who i envy. They could as well be doing half time paid work, but for them work is work, it's not so much about money or early retirement. It's about the contentment of doing something useful together with others.

[bdangubic]

sounds like your work is invaluable part of your life - absolutely nothing wrong with that. as bumpersticker say “I’d rather be fishing/golfing/boating/…”

[nuancebydefault]

I like fishing/golfing/boating... for a week. Have you tried it for longer?

[anonzzzies]

Exactly; it's why I worked hard during and after uni so I could retire young. That was 25 years ago; I am working more than ever now. But only on whatever I want / like to do. That happens to make money as people want to buy it.

[chr1]

Another possible solution to the situation you describe is when grandparents are taking care of children and young people work as much as they can. There is a theory that people evolved to live past reproductive years, because it allowed to raise more children.

[Muromec]

>but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest

This. So much this. I don’t want to start catching up on life after I’m 70 or 60 something and hate every minute before I retire.

Once I got my mortage, there is no more reasons to care about exact numbers that much.

[georgeecollins]

I heard a financial planner say once that many of his clients don't know how to retire. My Dad worked until he was ninety making money he will never spend. If you enjoy your job and have control over your time and projects, you may also want to keep working.

Retirement sounds very appealing when you aren't spending enough time with your friends and family, or when you aren't getting enough relaxation. But there will come a time when your kids won't really want to spend that much time with you. And a hobby you spend all your time on could become an unpaid job.

There will be times in your life when you have to be all in on your job. But when its not those times, try to have a balanced life now.

[ghaff]

I "retired." Still go to some events that are particularly interesting, usually in areas that I enjoy spending some extra time--though I did my best when I had a wage. Doing some of what I used to do anyway but on my own terms. I realize doing that is somewhat privileged but it works for me.

[griomnib]

I know somebody who worked, planned, and saved to spend their retirement traveling the world. It was their life ambition.

A few years after retirement they got early onset Alzheimer’s.

[dmje]

I’m 52. I’ve run a micro tech consultancy with my wife for 15 years. We live by the sea in Cornwall and we’ve chosen every step along the way to deliberately not grow our company by taking on staff, instead using freelancers. We’re comfortable but very far from rich, financially. Instead, we’re rich - honestly, I’d say billionaires! - as a family unit. My eldest has left home now to go to uni and the younger one will go next year. My wife and I have been around for them every step of the way, and it’s been the most beautiful and fulfilling journey - my life’s work!

I’ll easily still be working until retirement, probably beyond. I’ll be old and tired and probably pretty useless at tech. But I wouldn’t change a single thing about the last 20 years. It’s been amazing.

Everyone’s gotta do what they want to do - but not seizing life and putting your family at the middle of it - that, in my humble opinion, is batshit. We ain’t here long, and the only legacy is our kids and (maybe one day!) our kids kids. Make it count, which in my book doesn’t = “make loads of cash and as a consequence don’t ever see your loved ones”…

[Muromec]

"Clearly not North America"

[dmje]

Um, yes, and I’m completely uninformed about living and working in the US but doesn’t the ethic play the same wherever you are? Be interested to hear why you feel this kind of approach wouldn’t work.

[Muromec]

I'm across the channell right here, but worked with americans and for quite some time and also have some relatives living there. Attitude feels different to me.

Two week vacations aren't the norm, people schedule meeting on Friday 6pm and make pretend a lot. Time and effort put into work in the end doesn't seem to differ, but people seem to reinforce the idea the company basically owns them. That of course is highly subjective.

[vundercind]

Those charts that show remaining time you’ll be around someone at a given age are sobering.

Even if you live 30 years after your kids are out of the house, odds are only something like 5-10% of your total time with them will be in that 30 years.

Similar figures for your own parents and grandparents. Those hours with them are few, especially at ages when they can still do much.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet ).

Covid was a big moment for me in a lot of ways, because I was very pro-corporate for a long time. Having seen some of the bs up close and personal, it made me realize how broken our current system really is ( I still remember 'we are in this together' lip service and 'driving is your zen time' ). Having a kid ( and seeing it grow up ) can be such a radicalizing moment.

[grecy]

> I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet)

Why do you think healthcare is tied to employment in the US?

Why do you think minimum wage in the US has not gone up in decades?

Why do you think 2 weeks leave is normal in the US?

Why don’t more Americans travel overseas?

At this point you have to be willfully ignorant not to make the connection.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

There is no reason to make too snarky. The reality is the propaganda machine in US is really well oiled.

[nuancebydefault]

For me, everything i read and hear about the US is so weirdly confusing.

Here on HN I often read that there are a lot of problems with healthcare, poverty, minimum wages, too big cars, overweight, pollution, racism, big companies and rich people having too much power...

... and then i see the result of the election and the only argument is: this guy will fix our too high taxes.

[_dp9d]

Americans have been convinced to vote against their own best interests by decades of lobbying and propaganda.

As just one example, they deeply believe Socialism is evil, never mind the very vast majority of their daily services are dependant on it.

[ryandrake]

Yep, small towns are dying, corporate wealth and power is growing, and prices are rising, and we just voted for the side who will accelerate all three.

[Ray20]

> Why do you think healthcare is tied to employment in the US?

Because if you would take THIS money from the people directly, they will be very unhappy.

> Why do you think minimum wage in the US has not gone up in decades?

Minimum wage is eaten up by an ever-increasing amount of regulations

> Why do you think 2 weeks leave is normal in the US?

Otherwise, the minimum wage would have to be lowered

> Why don’t more Americans travel overseas?

It seems like because they already live in the best country

[rwyinuse]

If Americans truly lived in the best country, they could afford enough vacation to just travel for fun.

America is indeed the best country for rich, highly successful people. The minimum wage is not eaten by regulations, but the corporate profits which make those few so rich. Ordinary workers are better off in many EU countries, and they naturally make the majority of the population. I think the best country is one which provides the best quality of life for the average and median citizen, not just the elite.

[insane_dreamer]

Pretty much wrong on all counts.

[rachofsunshine]

Honestly, if you're not a radical in the year 2024, you haven't been paying attention.

I travel around a lot (a thing I can do because I work remotely). From SF to Seattle to Tampa to Salt Lake to the small-town corners of the Carolinas, everyone is struggling. You can feel it in the air, find people identifying with it in every conversation, see the slow decay of every place you know. The dead mall in your hometown, your phone forcing a prompt to take your data to train some AI, the favelas that are now the norm in every major city (regardless of local policy), the fact that you now get a prompt for what is effectively a payday loan when you try to order a pizza.

I think people underestimate how poisonous that is to a culture and to a body politic. When you don't believe in reform, you either shrug and let things burn, or you start setting the fires yourself. Neither bodes well.

[nuancebydefault]

Weird, i totally cannot relate. I don't see decay around me. The decay is mostly the geopolitical situation in several places in the world, together with climate change. If it were not in the news, i wouldn't even know.

[rachofsunshine]

Out of curiosity, where do you live?

[nuancebydefault]

A place that the present elect of the US referred to as 'hellhole'.

[hezralig]

Where do you live mate?

[insane_dreamer]

100%. In the past 40 years we've experienced the largest wealth transfer in history, from workers to shareholders. And you don't even need to have read Piketty to see it (though it helps).

[Muromec]

Management wants replaceable units which are cheap to source, maintain and replace and utilize to the maximum. That’s all it was ever about

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It does ring true and I am not sure I can refute it ( management wants easily replaceable cogs for the machine ). But my overall thought is that humans are a lot of things, but among those things they are also horrible biological machines if seen only through that prism. Our whole value to the system is that we can adjust to the unknown.

Still, maybe more importantly, we are not all even the same cogs, but management tries to lazily put us in the same category. I am not sure we can even really call it management. That is actually a mismanagement of human resources..

I think I mentioned this pet theory before here, but it is no longer 1950, but the management has not evolved since that period in US. Maybe it is time to force that evolution.

[pwg]

> I am starting to wonder if the management wants to ensure people in general do not make that connection ( and just want to have, ideally, serfs barely making ends meet ).

One big reason is they are very worried about their stock grants due to the stock value nosedive that will occur once they finally have to write off all those office space leases as actual losses and report the loss on their SEC forms.

If they can force RTO then all the money being spent for office space leases remains in the "business expense" category and the stock price does not tank as a result.

[dasil003]

This narrative has been repeated ad nauseam, but I'm not fully buying it. What is the average S&P 500 exposure to real estate for their stock price? In a handful of cases sure, but en masse it seems much more likely driven by more direct management beliefs about productivity and/or calculation to drive a "silent layoff" through voluntary attrition.

[heelix]

I live about six miles or so from the office. I'm so much more productive (and end up working far longer) at home than in the cattle car hotel configuration. I dislike the idea that they might try to pitch things as 'pay less' if I'm more productive. If I'm in the office, I've lost the day. WFH should not be a reason to make less - it should be considered a benefit like a gym membership. If folks use it, the company comes out ahead in the end.

[lolinder]

Pure WFH will naturally tend to translate to making less if you're currently living in a high CoL area, because there are lots of us living in low CoL areas for whom 75% of a Bay Area salary would be a huge raise.

If a remote-first company can give someone in a nearby time zone with the same language and cultural background and the same skillset a tempting offer while saving themselves 25% of their salary band, they're going to do it. It's not because they think you're less productive, it's because they're now looking in a wider job market with more competition from people who need less money to live.

The converse is also true: if you're living in a low CoL area, WFH can actually bring you a huge pay increase, because salaries balance out somewhere in the middle.

(I'll add that I strongly believe that where you live should not impact your income if you're in a remote company, for the reasons you list: if you're in the same country as everyone else, your location of residency has no impact on your value to the company.)

[jjav]

> Early retirement is nice, and earlier retirement is even nicer, but given a choice between retiring when my kid is 20 and being home with him every day throughout his whole childhood, there's no contest.

Agreed. I took 3 years off to be with my child every day in elementary school, priceless! It certainly did delay my retirement by a lot more than 3 years but totally worth it.

[bluGill]

Don't orget the body wears out as it ages. Already at 50 I find things I cannot do. I don't know how aging will hit you but you really should plan for the day when work isn't possible.

[lolinder]

Right, but I'm talking about the difference between retiring at 60 and retiring at 50 or even younger.

You don't need a FAANG salary to retire at (what use to be) the normal age or somewhat early, but you do need one to retire very early. I'm saying that I won't choose to chase a very early retirement if doing so compromises the time I can spend with my kids while they're young.

[saghm]

> Speaking for myself, beyond a certain income threshold there has been no substantial quality of life improvement.

I strongly agree with this mindset, and I'd argue that it's pretty well-supported as a phenomenon for most people, if not all. Money is a huge deal up to the point where you can live comfortably and without worrying about the future; beyond that, it doesn't really seem to make anyone happier. That being said, it's still a luxury that isn't at all common for most people, but it doesn't require being a millionaire (at least, not with the current level of inflation).

[jfengel]

Beyond a certain point, you have as much money as you wish to spend. Some people don't seem to have a top limit, but for many, those lucky enough to earn more will just put it away.

The difference in your lifestyle isn't now, but in a few decades. It's hard to know when you have enough for the rest of your life. There are formulas, though I don't really know how meaningful they are.

Meantime you're clearly leading a better life now, and may well not mind having a few additional years of it (compared to a bit less time with a lot more aggravation).

So, congratulations. It sounds like you made a well-founded choice.

[ghaff]

I probably saved more than I had to do and probably shouldn't be as (relatively) frugal as I am. COVID definitely pushed out a significantly earlier (semi-)retirement.

[bradlys]

> I did the same and for around 50% cut.

How did you and poster above manage this? A 50% paycut would mean having to move to a much more remote area for most people without a lot of NW already.

Homes being $1-3m in most of the places that FAANG resides just makes it implausible to take a cut from $400k+/yr to maybe $200k/yr. You can't afford a mortgage at $200k/yr for a $1m home with 20% down.

Is everyone here who is taking these paycuts just have a partner who makes bank or are you already rich thanks to having bought/inherited property long ago?

This advice just seems implausible to most anyone who cares about being in a good school district, in a relatively populous area, and hasn't inherited millions through buying real estate, inheritance, or stock appreciation.

[typeofhuman]

I live in the Florida. My employer at the time changed to RTO and offered to pay for relocation. I was making just shy of $400k. I resigned. I now make a little over $200k still WFH. My mortgage is $2k a month. Good size house with a pool and yard in a really nice gated community. I have no car payments, no student loans, and no credit card debt. My partner's income isn't even in six figures.

We live in a top-rated school district, although our kids are homeschooled, and will likely go private for high school. We live well-below our means.

I think it's just location, location, location.

[bradlys]

Didn’t think $400k/yr jobs were even an option in Florida. Maybe one of the few companies that moved to Miami over Covid I guess?

Makes more sense. You weren’t near any of the traditional tech cities. So, cost of living was always going to be low. Your mortgage is less than what it costs for a studio apartment in most tech centers.

[typeofhuman]

Let me clarify, my 400k job was HQ'ed in California. I worked remotely in Florida. But they changed to a RTO policy and offered relocation assistance. I refused to move to Cali so I resigned.

The company I work for now is HQ'ed in Atlanta, GA. But I still WFH.

[bradlys]

That makes more sense. You never had the HCOL to begin with and so you never really had to suffer a serious setback in lifestyle due to taking a 50% cut.

For me and most others I know, I’m only living in these expensive areas - so taking that kind of pay cut requires something extraordinary to sustain a decent quality of life.

[ndriscoll]

200k/yr for an 800k loan should be fine. You'd have a 60-65k/yr mortgage. Your DTI would be under 36% so lenders would be okay with it, and you might have like 100k in total living expenses so plenty of savings buffer.

1M can buy a house in a very nice suburb in an excellent school district.

[bradlys]

It can’t in Silicon Valley. Maybe in Tacoma or the very outer burbs of nyc. I don’t get the point living that far out though. You’re just in suburban hell at that point and stuck with working remote or a megacommute.

Either way, over half your net income is going to housing and that’s on the lower bound of what I gave. You probably won’t have a nice house. Maybe a starter home. May as well move to rural Indiana at that point.

[ndriscoll]

In a good area of "suburban hell" you can find things like clean streets with lots of greenery, a 2% poverty rate, public schools with an average SAT score at the 91 percentile and 71% AP enrollment, over 80% of households with married couples and almost 50% with kids. $1M can buy you a 4000 sq ft house on 1 acre.

Working remote is the point. You can live somewhere nice for families instead of a big city. Just don't live in places like California.

[bdangubic]

where would this area be located on a map?

[ndriscoll]

The specific place I have in mind is in Tennessee. I know there are some nice suburbs in Arizona as well. I'm sure there are more all over the country.

[insane_dreamer]

huh? just because you're not in SF or Seattle or Boston doesn't mean you're in a "much more remote area"

You can absolutely buy a decent house in a nice city for $750K on a total household income under $150K. Without having inherited anything.

Source: me. 2 young kids. Not living in SF, obviously.

[jumping_frog]

I don't understand why isn't WFH made mandatory since it helps with climate change.

[Muromec]

Because mandate giving authority doesn’t care about climate change. That’s pretty obvious explanation

[griomnib]

Hey now, the morons somehow managed to remain organized enough to choose these authorities. And now we’ll all burn together.

Don’t let your fellow citizen off the hook.

[Muromec]

Yep, crime is always orginized and your fellow citizen, especially during the good times, aren't

[bdangubic]

data to support this claim? you are (incorrectly) assuming that since employees are not commuting to work they are just home and cars are just collecting dust in a garage… but of course you go to the store and mall and park and … in the middle of the day and you see a whole other story :)

[jumping_frog]

One off excursions are totally different than a 5 day back and forth. I don't have data but one can guess.

[brantonb]

I have data for myself. My annual driving dropped from roughly 9,000 miles to 5,000 miles when I switched to WFH. In addition to avoiding the daily back and forth, I’d often make a detour on my evening commute to get groceries for the next couple of days. Now I plan things out better and make fewer shopping trips, as well.

I wonder if I could negotiate cheaper car insurance rates. I’m driving far less and on safer streets, rarely getting on a major highway.

[bdangubic]

lets say you are good representative of a general population… how much of a climate change “dent” do you think we made?

[brantonb]

I was simply providing a single data point. Please feel free to use that to support your theory or ignore it.

[bdangubic]

there are many positives of WFH but climate change is not one of them

[bdangubic]

you don’t write policies based on guesses…

[insane_dreamer]

We have data from COVID when most people were working from home.

[bdangubic]

COVID is an outlier mate… it wasn’t just that most people were working from home, it was that everything stopped. if that was sustainable long-term that we are all on lockdown globally sure - we’d get traction in climate change and fast. unfortunately though…

[insane_dreamer]

Yeah, during the initial lockdown period everything stopped but afterwards things resumed a bit more normally as businesses opened, etc., while a large number of people were still working from home.