[maxverse]

I feel like both the point you quote and your response are valid, and not mutually exclusive. It's great that you were able to avoid lifestyle creep and that $200K felt like a lot of money that "had a huge impact on my later financial condition, and enabled me to do many things". And I think Katrine (from the article) feels like that should be a lot of money. I don't see lifestyle creep playing a role in her life. Instead, another person they quote says:

> [Ms. Gan]she saw the strain on friends who were earning below $200,000, for whom rent, utilities and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in.

[apparent]

I don't understand how rent, utilities, and groceries consume nearly everything that comes in unless you're vastly overspending in one category. If she's paying $60k in taxes then she's got $140k left. That's over $10k/mo. How can someone spend that much without lifestyle creep?

I understand that one could feel pinched at that salary, when including saving for down payment, future kids, and retirement. But that's different from saying the basics consume nearly everything.

[rsynnott]

So, per the article, it is apparently difficult to find a one bed apartment for under 5k a month. Assuming that's true, half her take-home salary going on rent would get her a lot of the way there!

[apparent]

Even if someone were spending $5k on housing, how do you spend $5k on utilities and groceries (not dining out, it says groceries)?

Also, not having a roommate straight out of college is typically a lifestyle bump in itself. Most people have roommates in college, so getting a place solo is an upgrade.

[stackbutterflow]

Can it be a case of she's not earning all of the $200k in cash?

[apparent]

It's possible, but that would be a pretty relevant detail to leave out. Someone who's getting paid in carried interest is in a very different boat than a run of the mill employee.

[cherry_tree]

You think someone in California making 200k is paying an overall 30% in combined federal and state taxes? That seems out of touch with reality to me.

[apparent]

I was making a guess based on having earned less and more than that amount. Just checked with ChatGPT and its estimate for a single person with no mortgage interest was $46k in income taxes and $13k in payroll taxes.

[John23832]

4k for rent 3k for retirement

3k for everything else. I’m not going to sit and itemize, but I could very easily see 3k getting eaten (figuratively)

[prewett]

I'm confused about the quote, because the numbers do not add up to me. Elsewhere in the discussion SV apartments are quoted at $3500/month. When I rent, utilities tend to be under $100, and groceries are about $400. Let's be generous and say "utilities and groceries" are $1000. So "rent, utilities and groceries" are $4500/month, at total federal + CA state tax rate of 40% (estimating high), that means $90k/year to break even. I'm not sure what Ms. Gan filtered via the reporter thinks "consum[ing] nearly everything that comes in" means, but lets say 80% of income that's $112k, although that would still be a $20k/yr surplus (and a 5 month cushion). So there's quite a lot of room "earning below $200,000" and financial distress. If the article meant "less than $100k" I could believe it. Or perhaps Ms. Gan's friends' "rent, utilities and groceries" comprises more things than it literally means?

[fragmede]

Saving for retirement should be in the list, along with gym membership and entertainment. Transportation. Why is the default budget "rent, utilities, groceries"?