I don’t think that’s the right way to think about it.
You usually aren’t born needing to pay $100, and having $80, there are probably decisions you make that put you more or less likely to be in that situation, some obvious, some not.
Sometimes you do get shit luck, but I think there are always ways to mitigate the negative consequences of bad luck, and maximize the consequences of good luck.
We have a lot of control over how our lives turn out here in the US, though not complete control, and it’s worth remembering that.
You are born (possibly) needing a car to commute to work, and needing a place to live, and needing to eat - and those costs have been going up.
It is legitimately difficult and incredibly stressful to work in the service industry in San Fran unless you've lucked into being able to live in the downtown on the cheap. The suburbs that are affordable are hours away by car and more by public transit.
That’s a choice, and exactly what I’m talking about. Everything is a trade-off and while you can’t control everything, you can control a lot of things.
One example I like to think of in this situation is a person I knew from my childhood, who struggled. If you asked him, he'd tell you how hard it is out there, and how many times life had giving him the short end of the stick. In many ways, he was right. However, when you start looking at his choices, you begin to see a pattern.
He had a hard time living on his own, and had to move back into his mom's house at one point. If you asked him, it'd be due to a roommate situation that fell through, sticking him with a lease on a 2BR apartment that bled him dry. But if you dug in, you'd find out he signed that lease after his potential roommate backed out, and he never tried to fill the second bedroom. He was paying for a 2BR on near-minimum wage salary. He could not afford this, he should have never made this decision, and yet if you ask him, it's the result of the bad hand he got dealt due to the roommate.
Was it tough, having a roommate back out? Yes. Did he need to sign that 2BR lease anyway? No. Did he need to leave the second BR empty for the duration of the lease? No.
Oh yea - some people have a hard time adjusting to the life they're able to live, but for a while I subletted a bedroom for 250/mo in a party house and that period of my life was utterly miserable. I got absolutely terrible sleep and the bathroom frequently with a sink full of rotting limes encouraged me to spend as much time as possible loitering on campus. I would've had a hard time working during that period as my schedule was constantly in flux around when parties were happening and my ability to have a shower was sometimes limited by puke or passed out folks.
You're mostly coming from an angle of personal choice but relocating yourself a significant distance costs a lot of money, it can be a financial burden to move across country or even across state. There are people who can voluntarily escape their situation (like your buddy) but there are a big portion that are just stuck there involuntarily.
I'd add that it's also a bit unfair to judge people whose solutions seem solvable but are in tough spots. I don't know if you've ever lived through a period of high stress (I was a game developer for a while and worked a lot of overtime while suffering from OSA) but when you don't have room to breathe it can be hard to puzzle a way out of your situation. You're just focusing on surviving with what you've got and all your energy is going into it, you don't have the presence of mind to logically consider your options and decide to cut your losses and run.
Not only do I think it's not unfair, I think people who are in tough situations often hide in those tough situations as a way of explaining their continued poor choices, even though the situation, while tough, has no bearing on why people keep digging themselves into deeper and deeper holes.
For example, it costs money to move out of SF, yes, but it also costs money to stay in SF, which is something you'd figure out if you stopped and evaluated the options.
It's hard, I empathize with that, but it's no excuse. Everything is hard, and having the presence of mind to logically consider your options is your responsibility. Not taking that time is not a luxury people in those situations usually have, but seem to think they do because "do nothing" is always an option, no matter how costly it ends up actually being.
I think it's fair to judge someone based on their decisions, doubly so for their decisions in a tough spot. There are always good choices to be made in a given situation, and not making those good choices (even if they're limited) is the responsibility of the individual, and nobody else.
I think that at some point in your life you may change your tune on that fact if you ever find yourself in an incredibly stressful situation. I do understand that it seems illogical from the outside, but struggling to survive can leave you blind to hope that things can get better and prevent you from having the stability of mind to sort out your shit. This is one of (but not the only reason) why abusive relationships are also such a big problem - while you're in them you don't have the personal power and stability to safely transition out of them.
I disagree that I haven't been in an incredibly stressful situation, I think I just handled my stress appropriately and in a way that didn't make things worse.
Further, I don't think what I did in stressful situations is relevant to this conversation at all, since we're talking about what one should do. Saying, "One should panic, and that's okay." is not accurate, I don't think.
Surely it's understandable, but it's not what one ought to do.
I am bad with money. I’m also not abnormal. A 2017 survey by CareerBuilder found that 78 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, while a 2019 survey by Bankrate found that 60 percent of us couldn’t cover a $1,000 emergency.
For most in this predicament, it has nothing to do with being bad with money. It has everything to do with their income being 80% of their essential bills.
> but I can tell you that there were $60 rounds of drinks purchased without a second thought and $25 cab rides to the bars. There were $1,500 ski-season cabin shares in Lake Tahoe and a $150-a-month membership at Equinox. There were multiple Starbucks lattes per day and $18 organic steak salads eaten at my desk.
I don't think this is someone who can't cover essential bills with their salary. This is the trap kids fall into (my early 20's self included) when they first start making real money and it feels endless.
WarOnPrivacy wasn't saying that this person was someone who wasn't making much money; they were replying to the rational for this not being "abnormal": most people who live paycheck-to-paycheck--not this person, but most people--simply don't make much money... they aren't "bad with it".
It's interesting hearing others' experiences on this. Among my circles, my friends would sometimes comment on how weird it was to come to terms with the fact they were no longer dirt poor college students and how now they had disposable income and how guilty they'd feel spending money due to the frugal student mentality.
To this day, I still don't feel the urge to buy things on impulse, or because peers have them or do trendy things.
When it happened to me I went from a lifetime of being poor (not just college student poor, family poor before college even) to making 3x the national median salary in the span of 2 years.
Yeah it was a little intoxicating and I def overdid it. No regrets tho.
Moving to America (sfba) quickly fixed that. Now I’m back to being pretty frugal (but not too much) and investing in asset building. Turns out that’s more rewarding.
But your early to mid 20’s are a great time to go a little crazy if you can. It will never again feel the same. You have little responsibility and lots of time to catch up later.
It would be very difficult to get a lunch or dinner for $15 that was of any reasonable quality in my region. I do not live in an absurdly high COL area (CNY)
What can you possibly be eating for $5
I think some people can treat eating as more utilitarian, while having a great meal or even a halfway decent meal is a true pleasure and an experience worth having as often as possible for myself. The small pleasure is what makes the grind feel worthwhile.
I fully expect to walk out $25-$30 lighter after a basic entree/lunch, a drink and a tip, even if eating alone on a lunch break. A date with my wife ( on the low end) $70, bring out the whole family ($100)
Do we have significantly different average prices. Maybe a pre-made gas station sandwich or single fast food sandwich could cost $5
A $5 meal sounds like a chore, an amazing roadside Shack find! or absolute trash ingredients not worth eating.
It can hardly be true that 78% of Americans can only afford food, shelter, usually a car (any car!) and perhaps health insurance. A hint is that they live paycheck to paycheck, i.e. the spending just "happens" to match the earning.
Don't get me wrong, of course there are genuinely poor people. But not far over half of the population.
I agree that that's a major point. Still, I'm consistently utterly surprised by friends/family/colleagues with similar income but a very different predicament.
I was raised on welfare myself and started out my early twenties with minimum wage jobs including factory work. Yet I always had savings, the idea that I couldn't cover a $1000 emergency would be insane to me, especially structurally.
Did that mean I had to live with my parents longer than I'd have liked to? Yes. I also didn't have a car and took the bus. I had a cheap Android phone. Wore secondhand clothes. I rarely ate out, and in my first 25 years of my life I never, ever, just went somewhere to get a coffee.
But I did have a home, transport, clothes, a smartphone, food and coffee, and also savings.
I don't want to victim-blame, there's certainly many who're trapped in a predicament. And it certainly helped being young, healthy, flexible, without kids, there's an immeasurable privilege to that situation versus the contrary (old, sick, with dependents). But I also saw plenty who weren't trapped and spent a ton on a way too expensive lease car they didn't need. Or who always had the latest iphone, and also had a minimum wage job. Or who rented a place downtown, instead of 20 minutes commute for a 30% discount. Those are lifestyle choices, which is completely fine to make, but not unconditionally. Once you have an emergency fund and you prioritize the short term over the long-term, it's simple a personal preference. But if you have no emergency fund, or if you have long-term goals you want to meet, you need to manage it. I have lots of friends who don't even spend the 1 hour a week to make and monitor a very basic budget for example.
I mean let's be frank, median household income is $64k in the US. It's about the richest in the world, especially if you exclude the tiny rich states that have a few million people like Luxembourg there's nothing to really rival it. The idea that <1 week of median household income is an emergency for 4 out of 5 households is statistically not in line with 'for most it's just their predicament, not related to lifestyle or financial planning or management'.
My experience is pretty similar to yours but I think what you need to try to understand is that everyone has a different level of what is an acceptable "minimal" lifestyle. For a lot of people, these are habits/behaviors that they grew up with as well. It's complicated.
Lack of financial literacy is another problem that, I think, exacerbates the above.
I understand where you’re coming from but no one is forcing them to have the latest iPhone or make other unwise decisions. Living frugally and depriving yourself of pleasures that others take for granted (like I NEVER use doordash but for others it’s a way of life multiple times a week) is a choice as well. Having a high acceptable minimum lifestyle is their choice and choices have consequences.
I think most people don't have anything resembling stability in their minds, and spend an inordinate amount of time in a "flight or fight" mood with heightened anxiety. Median household income is 64k - this isn't a per person number and responsibilty, the rat race, it compels spending. Having the willpower to stabilize your life can be difficult, when you need stability to find willpower.
> I think most people don't have anything resembling stability in their minds, and spend an inordinate amount of time in a "flight or fight" mood with heightened anxiety.
I suspect this becomes increasingly likely as one progresses.
I have become much better at important things. However, anxiety has increased - largely because I have shifted from blind confidence to educated awareness.
> I mean let's be frank, median household income is $64k in the US. It's about the richest in the world [...]
This is a near meaningless way to compare things. I am not sure we even have an appropriate, widely used and widely computed/measured metric for this.
What matters is not the size of the median household income, but the ratio of this income to likely household expense.
If you need to put far more of your income into your self-managed retirement account(s), or to pay for healthcare that isn't covered by a national insurance scheme, or to pay for membership at a recreational facility that might otherwise have been free after local taxes, or to cover current, future or past educational costs that would be an order or magnitude or more less in another locale, or to cover day care that might have been provided by your government, your effective income is not well measured by its absolute magnitude.
Living with your parents longer than expected sounds like your parents didn't also need you to be helping support them while you were getting these savings
How so? I don't see the link between not moving out as soon as expected, meaning my parents must've not been financially dependent on me in any way.
Would you for example suppose that parents who're in need of financial support would have their kids move out earlier than expected? I don't really follow your point.
Not the OP, but we have some sort of subsidized housing here, for example for people who worked for the German State Railway (before it was privatized).
So the parents got an X m2 apartment for N EUR (below market rate). When the children move out, they now have to pay N+M EUR because with 2 people they would only have been alotted an X-Y m2 apartment. Maybe an edge case, I know.
Ah, interesting. In the Netherlands it was different and there was an opposite effect, actually I moved out to support my parents.
Because my dad was dependent on the state (disability) he received a supplemental income to get his living standard to the absolute legal minimum (set at 70% of minimum wage) that all Dutch citizens have a right to regardless of circumstance.
However, the government assumes that if there's say 4 people living in one home, that they're a household that can share certain costs, e.g. rent, heating, furniture etc. This means the minimum living standard can be attained with less money, so they cut your benefits. The more adults there are, the higher the discount. As I aged from a kid to a young adult, living at home meant his income was cut.
Second, any income that the household makes (e.g. from my job), would be cut from his benefits, as we shared a household. e.g. if I earned 500 euros, he'd get 500 euros less.
This meant that to live at home, a large portion of my minimum wage earnings (parttime, next to my studies) would go simply to make up for the cuts to my dad's benefits. Minimum wage is about 1500 here, so working a 33% job would net me 0 euros as the entire 500 went to my dad who got cut from 900 to 400 due to my job.
It's a weird system that definitely is grounded in some sound logic, but also creates edge cases that aren't creating useful outcomes. It pushed me out of the house, into an expensive housing market, left my dad (who wasn't very healthy) alone in a house, that also happened to be a social home that now has empty bedrooms. It also could've pushed me to quit my job as there was no real incentive in the short-term to work, but I knew long-term it wasn't viable.
Do people who consider themselves “outdoorsy” tend to pursue employment opportunities that pay less than their potential earnings, had they pursued employment that maximized the value of their skills?
It’s like a “pursue your passion” dilemma. If your passion is whitewater rafting, employment in that field will pay differently than, say, many kinds of employment facilitated by a computer science degree.
Same dilemma goes for clergy, who often have marketable and lucrative skills they leave behind to pursue their calling.
Anecdotally, I'd say it's very common. In fact I often meet people who have abandoned previously lucrative careers to work for peanuts, in exchange for more skiing. A friend of mine used to be an investment banker; currently a server at a bar. I myself gave up software development and delivered pizza for a couple of years (though I later ended up with a decent compromise.)
Simplifying dieting down to calories in calories out is one of my pet peeves, because it doesn't give you any information about how to achieve those goals. People don't automatically understand satiation, binge eating, macro and micronutrients, shopping, cooking, the caloric density of restaurant and takeaway food, BMR, the relatively tiny amount of calories burnt by exercise, or calorie tracking. These things aren't obvious and they're buried under a lot of misinformation.
The same goes for budgeting. Saying "spend less and get a better paying job" doesn't really help compared to detailed instructions on how to open a savings account and automatically deposit 5% of your pay into it, reviewing your monthly expenditure, changing habits like ordering delivery food every weekend, long term investments like buying your own washing machine, or pursuing a qualification that will help you earn more.
I guess the point I was trying to make is more that doing these things is not impossible. It is just a matter of being properly informed (which is in itself a difficult task).
This insight is hard to beat for explaining power.
I've found it pretty easy to save money almost on accident with a six figure income, even without keeping too close an eye on expenditures. Helps if you skip buying the luxury auto, don't pick the most expensive living quarters you can, keep eating out under $10-15/day, and if you can be lucky+conscientious enough not to have catastrophic healthcare expenses, but you don't even have to do all of that and you can save 20% and pay your taxes.
It's certainly possible closer to the median, but the belt has to be tighter.
Bottom third? Pinching pennies. Pick marginal housing. $25/week groceries. Turn down social invitations when your gas/transport budget's up. And saving for that $1000 emergency will still be slow.
There's something in a part of some people's psychology that wants to imagine that if you're just disciplined enough you can make it all happen no matter what the constraints are. Discipline can make a difference, but not the same scale of difference that greater resource inflows do.
Reading stuff like this makes me feel old. The - new generation? - who seem to always publicly remind themselves that they're good enough after all and just like everyone else and normal and it's hard for us ... and now don't get me wrong: these things can be true. But I grew up not standing on a soapbox and exclaiming these things, and not thinking or writing in that way.
It's kind of a race to the bottom if everything is treated like you're an object and not a subject, as in, blowing around in the wind by objective forces that are external. There really is a mix of external and subjective forces at play, but we're reminded of the external with this style.
I would have said, "I fucked up. I used to be bad with money. Now I do this: __ __ __. "Bad with money" implies an immovable predicament and "I'm not alone" implies systemic forces at play. Again, the focus on the absolute and removal of the subject.
Yes, I'm extrapolating quite a bit from so little, it's just that this style of writing seems ubiquitous now.
Evoking the sense that there are systematic forces at play is intentional! Who cares if _you're_ bad with money? It could be an edge case that doesn't matter. But if it's normal to be bad with money (i.e. there are a lot of people who are bad with money), that's a little more interesting -- something to pay attention to.
Also, as someone on the younger side, this mentality is comforting. It's the comfort of existing within a school of fish. Despite unpredictable currents that act on you like an object, it's comforting to know that there are many of you. A few individuals disappear here and there, but chances are the school will survive. You're normal, you belong, things are hard, but you'll probably be fine.
As someone also on the younger side, I want to echo what you've said: I've also felt feelings of not belonging, things are hard, but you'll probably be fine.
More like the GP, however, I've gotten there not through identification with others but instead through the cultivation of a spiritual life philosophy.
Like GP, I also grow tired of hearing these voices too often. I have a little sister, who is 13 now, and she feels submitted to her fate. More often than not she feels like a candle in the wind (queue Elton John) instead of a captain at the helm.
But you're right, it is something to pay attention to. These little instances all add up to be statistically relevant and a source of knowledge for collective social truth-finding.
One thing I must insist on, philosophically, however, is that we are not often served by identifying with sub-par things. Personal identification is very useful for aspiring and evolving, but personal identification with the present or the past can unnecessarily keep you anchored to bad habits.
Not sure I really agree, to me it just seemed as if she's speaking to a wider trend of people mismanaging their finances and speaks to the reasons (culture, literacy, short-term bias etc). It's quite common for journalists to try to touch on societal trends, whilst doing it through the lens of a personal story, it makes the writing relatable to the reader and thereby potentially useful.
But even if she wasn't doing that and was indeed looking to normalize financial illiteracy by saying it's common and she's not the only one, I think that's a pretty healthy perspective. Yes she fucked up, which she acknowledges. But it can be healthy to not seek fault in you as a person or your character, but rather to seek fault in your behaviour, your lack of education on a topic, your views which may have been too biased for the short-term. After all, those things can be changed, it gives the individual agency and a feeling of control. I think the entire article acknowledged that the solution lied with her changing her views, her habits, her financial literacy, her financial management. I found it to the contrary of removal of the subject.
> I fucked up.
Was she not saying exactly those things? For example she says "I saw my folly" or "How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund? It wasn’t just that I’d only ever lived for my youth; maybe I’d only ever lived for myself. No wonder I was alone." It's quite clear she felt she fucked up and saw the issue with herself.
> I used to be bad with money. Now I do this: __ __ __.
Again, I felt she touched on this throughout the article, e.g. by saying things like "I’d started reading personal-finance books, analyzing my spending, and making budgets. I also started wearing sunscreen."
> It's kind of a race to the bottom if everything is treated like you're an object and not a subject, as in, blowing around in the wind by objective forces that are external. There really is a mix of external and subjective forces at play, but we're reminded of the external with this style.
It might, if you consider "choosing to live in a high-cost-of-living area when you could have access to jobs with similar pay in lower-cost-of-living areas" to be "being bad at money."
(Or, to go even more hard-line, if you consider "choosing to not go into trades, medical specialties, or other high-career-wage-growth-per-input-hour-of-education career paths, when you have no reason to believe you're uniquely suited to/talented at the high-barrier-to-entry career path you've chosen instead, and thereby not especially likely to end up making money at it" to be "being bad at money.")
It may be true, but I don't believe this sort of article is aimed at people who are already doing everything they can. It's aimed at people who aren't, like their formerly-irresponsible selves.
Who knows, maybe publishing it in Outside will reach someone?
80% of their Essential bills leaves a lot to be invested or saved.
I'd disagree, it's money management at that point.
I'm more concerned about those who are unprofitable every paycheck and growing debt, no way to cut expenses further. Probably due to high COL and lack of education, but I can't blame someone for living where they have family .
I think you may have misread the comment you're responding to. They're saying income is 80% of expenses, not the other way around. In other words, expenses are 125% of income, leaving a negative number to be invested or saved.
In a 2014 study, he found that 58 percent of affluent people are first-generation wealth, not trust-fund babies.
I've heard that idea before, that the notion of inherited unearned wealth as explaining the bulk of the wealthy population is actually misleading. Same thing was said in that old book The Millionaire Mind I think.
I think people is the wrong metric for this statistic. A large number of just-barely-affluent nouveau riche could drown out a handful of old money robber barons that own the world.
The much more interesting statistic would slice it by dollar: What percentage of dollars are owned by first-generation wealthy versus old money?
Really depends on what you’re trying to use the number for. If you’re trying to study wealthy people, it makes sense to use stats that are counting people filtered by wealth. If you are trying to study wealth itself, it makes sense to use stats that are weighted by dollar.
that's what I figured, the people metric seems more pertinent to ideas of economic mobility across the population as a whole, we could think of a population percentile, like say jumping into the notorious 1%.
But the other metric is interesting too, something like an age x wealth product, the longer the wealth was held the higher the score, and the more wealth held the higher the score too. One could imagine like an area under net worth curve and create a histogram with decades of time as buckets, say across a 300 year span maybe?
I spent the last 25 minutes trying to find out exactly that, and have so far come up nearly blank, but I agree that dollars inherited is a way more useful question.
The meme of "a high percent of people who are millionaires are first-generation millionaires" is pervasive. Googling this returns mostly investment scheme websites and CNBC/USA Today/etc clickbait quoting "The Millionaire Next Door", and talking about how "If They Did It, You Can Do It Too!" -- it's like something straight out of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It really depends on where you’re drawing the line for wealth. The Millionaire next door set it at what most would consider a healthy retirement. Looking at the 100M level and things are different because unlike say 3M people can’t really just save up that kind of money, it takes leverage not just time and budgeting.
Further, it’s questionable what counts as inheritance vs hard work. If you turned the family business from a 5M dollar company to a 500M dollar company that’s difficult, but easier than starting from scratch.
that's a fascinating point, what figures can be attained by what means, very good distinction.
I remember looking at lifetime earnings of software engineers and tabulating a bunch of generic lifetime gross salaries in general. It's in the millions range for sure but it's not near anywhere in the $100M level.
A career lasting 50yr at $50k/yr --> $2.5M gross; $500k/yr --> $25M gross.
Note that (and I don't have a proper comp for this, but would be interested in one) 58% of wealthy people being first-generation wealth does not mean (or, with the way wealth tends to follow a power-law distribution, even necessarily imply) that 58% of the wealth held by affluent people is held by first-generation wealthy.
I'm not a particularly outdoorsy person, but being a frugal person, I have noticed that a lot of outdoors activities really do "require" an investment. Equipment can be expensive, as can ski passes or trips. Once you hang out in those circles (as the article states), you don't want to have cheap gear. It's as with anything, I suppose, but with gear, there's always more and better things, which never interested me.
I remember talking with coworkers about bikes and one was recommend bikes to another coworker who wanted to get into cycling and he was recommending some pricey options. I remember thinking that if you want to get into cycling, you really don't have to spend a lot. Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling. But for some people, half the fun is spending money on the toys. That same coworker admitted a few weeks later that he bought himself yet another bike, one that was several thousand dollars. Meanwhile I was stressing with my $1200 bike purchase as that felt like a lot of money.
It’s true that a lot of things take an investment but I don’t think you should be so prescriptive about some things like when you say:
“Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling.”
People can of course enjoy a hobby or activity and get something out of it that’s not the thing you think they should be getting out of it and that’s awesome. It’s okay if the fun is in spending the money, and it’s okay if you have a $1200 bike and don’t care about that stuff. They’re both equal ways of approaching any given hobby.
For seven thousand dollars you can get a computer that will make a saint weep (you can get something about 99% as good for like two grand if you build it yourself or four if you bought it prebuilt). Computers are insanely cheap joy boxes when compared to nearly every other form of entertainment - for that cost you're getting a piece of hardware that will be nearly top-of-the-line for three years or so now-a-days, and probably passably performant for a decade. So I entirely agree that, working in a field where video games are seen as a reasonable and normal past-time, the cost of renting skies for a weekend can seem outrageous.
Money is freaking weird - food and essentials are also a complicating factor here though. I like to eat well so my food budget is about 150$/week which is about three times as high (for two of us) as my parents paid for three of us.
Yeah, money is definitely weird. I suppose it's all about what we value. I have coworkers who have bought Teslas but when they talk about furniture, they'll buy super cheap things that, to me are poor quality and will fall apart easily. They treat it as purely a utilitarian item. To me, I'm okay with my crappy little 10 year old car as it gets me from A to B, but I want to spend a little more on furniture because I like the beauty and joy it brings me in my home.
Yes, I'm a Mountain Biker and have been for quite sometime now. I've had people ask me about getting into Mountain Biking on the cheap, say sub $500. I've told them to try hiking, it's far cheaper.
You can get a suitable hardtail for less than $500 on Craigslist pretty easy. I have been riding a bike I got for $100 for over 5 years. I dropped another $100 on a new set of brakes just to be safe. And most beginners would probably be better off starting on a cheap hardtail anyways. They should be starting off on easier trials where expensive gear is overkill, and hardtails are much less maintenance which means they will spend less time wrenching and more time riding.
I agree with the sentiment, but even with that many people get "ugradeitis" when they hit the trails and see all the cool looking expensive bikes. It's crazy to see how many high end mountain bikes here in Southern Orange County CA.
Back in my 20s, having spent HS and part of college running track and cross-country, I’d pass guys all the time in their bikes that cost more than my car in my $200 used bike that didn’t even have clipless pedals.
Those days are long gone now, but it was highly satisfying to see the look of panic on athletic, rich banker’s face when some punk kid in a t-shirt, shorts, and cheap bike passed him going up a hill.
Biking expenditures are nuts. I feel like I'm splurging if I don't let the soles wear off my sneakers before getting a new pair. I've only just begun regularly swapping them out — every year whether or not they need to be — because my feet feel fucking old if I don't.
You really don't need expensive gear. My first long distance hike was 150km through scotland (West Highland Way) and I spent about 80€ for a pair of used hiking boots. The rest was borrowed from friends and I've used my family's old camping tent. Sure, I could have saved about 3kg if I had bought newer, lighter gear. Maybe I would have made fewer stops, maybe I would have been a day faster or even two. But why, the sole idea behind the trip was to walk outside.
On my first day I met another solo hiker and he was kind of a gearhead - or showboat - because most of the time he talked about how light his gear is and what functions it has and apparently it was most important to him that I know how expensive it all was.
Same with bikes: if your goal is to ride a bike almost every bike that fits to the person riding it and us technically in good condition works.
I totally agree. I once did a half marathon and during training, and the half marathon itself, I used some cheap shoes I bought from Payless. My friend that I did the run with was shocked when I told her that on the day of the event. It didn't seem like a big deal to me.
I guess for a lot of people, gear really is a part of whatever hobby they're into. I used to be interested in photography and was showing some photos to some friends. They weren't anything amazing, but I was proud of them because I was starting to learn to compose photos and recognize good lighting. The camera I used wasn't anything special, though. Of course, one person who saw the photos immediately asked "What kind of equipment did you use?"
I’ve had years of joy and fitness cycling with cheap equipment. I’ve also had years of even more joy and fitness and goal achievement with relatively expensive equipment.
You weigh out what it’s worth to you for what you get out of it. You make the careful choice relative to everything you care about holistically and strategically.
The polarized ideas that you need to spend very little or an extreme amount are equally reductive. You should spend the amount you have carefully negotiated with yourself and your priorities.
For cycling in particular, you don’t need much to start out with. Slowly over time you may increase in fitness and time investment, community, goals. From there it becomes worth investing more IMO.
The thing with these things is that when you do it a lot, the cost of ski passes or bikes or whatever is not that high. If you ski 50-100 days, a $500 or $1000 ski pass is much cheaper than most forms of entertainment (that's less per day on lift access than it costs to go to a bar).
The way these kinds of things get expensive is if you buy all the passes and equipment but then only actually use it a few weeks a year.
I know a lot of people that do not make much money that have ski passes and nice equipment because their priorities are different.
Particularly with cycling, I always wondered why people would say justify their love of cycling with statements including fitness, self challenge, enjoying the outdoors.
I haven't heard any say they wanted to be regional champion.
If you compete with yourself, then changing your gear makes it hard to measure if you are getting better. Sometimes I think we compete with others when we don't need to.
Fitness / goal oriented cyclists have objective means to measure progress, for example pedals or cranks which measure your actual power output. This combined with your body weight is a ubiquitous measure of progress.
More expensive bikes are more comfortable and may boost your speed a bit depending on circumstance. To assume that people who decide to invest a bit in a healthy, fun activity are ignorant of such basic metrics seems pretty cynical.
I would urge you to dig deeper because there is an enormous amount of value in this type of investment.
I feel like sports are like this too. I see friends spending thousands of dollars on going to sporting events, sports paraphernalia, etc. Just seems like so much when you can watch free at home. I know I know, it’s the experience - but just hard to understand.
I guess they probably look at me spending hundreds on pc stuff and think the same thing.
> Once you hang out in those circles (as the article states), you don't want to have cheap gear
Having been hanging out in ski bum circles for quite a few years now, this doesn't seem to be the case to me. Most of them buy their gear used via ski swaps, craigslist, etc. People with blatantly expensive gear like Arcteryx are routinely mocked. We like to joke that if you don't have duct tape on your ski clothing, you're nothing but a poser who must have just flown in from NYC that morning.
> Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling. But for some people, half the fun is spending money on the toys.
I love getting out there and cycling (just got back from a ride in fact). I also love geeking out about bikes and bike gear, and I’m not sure why you say it “shouldn’t” be half about that. Why shouldn’t it? I appreciate the engineering that goes into them, the latest theories as to how to make bikes better, the design and aesthetics, the component choices and all the tradeoffs involved. Surely on Hacker News of all places, we’re allowed to geek out on such things? If you love cycling but refuse to allow yourself to appreciate how cool bikes are (regardless of age or price, btw), maybe you’re missing out on half the fun!
For some folks part of the motivation for getting outdoors is to escape the ills of modern life, and one of those ills is consumerism. As outdoor sports/recreation has turned into a fairly large and profitable industry, for those of us who are not a fan of the commercialization side of things, it has become increasingly difficult to ignore/escape. Trails are packed with folks in shiny new gear, outdoor media is filled with ads, etc...
I by no means begrudge someone who enjoys geeking out about gear. I occasionally indulge. But for the most part I like to get my equipment as hand me downs or on craigslist. And I try to keep that equipment running as long as possible. I find that repairing stuff scratches my engineering itch and that going minimalist with gear helps me focus on the experience more.
Fortunately my natural instincts appear to leave me with cash at end of month which I move to savings...but that is about the extent of my control over things.
Everything changed for me when I moved money to savings automatically on every paycheck. You kinda just figure out how to fit your life into what’s left.
I’m very bad with money and it tends to hit hard with depressive cycles. I end up just buying all kinds of shit I think I can afford (and in some cases can), but then go overboard on other things and running out of money once can turn into a really bad cycle. Trying to figure my way out of probably the worst I’ve ever gotten myself and it’s tough because there’s just no way to get rid of the heaviest hitting expenses. It’s somewhat embarrassing though, because I make more money than a good many of my casual acquaintances, but am likely significantly more broke.
The last time this happened to me, my solution was to take even more debt to move to a new job that doubled my salary. I had a plan to be debt free in ~2 years, but that kinda fell apart with COVID. I suppose I could try and do that again, but I’m not in a position professionally to take a better job.
Quickly becomes a chore when there are lots of cards accounts and platforms involved. Considered binding it together via api but different countries so it’s all a bit messy
You only have to look once to know where all the money is going, generally spending patterns are fairly consistent month-to-month. Like you said, there are APIs out there too.
At this point, refusal to do it is just outright laziness/irresponsibility.
I'm a firm believer that everyone should have a skill they can use to support themselves. It doesn't really matter what that is as long as you can't be replaced easily by unskilled labour.
So take the author. She wants to be a ski bum while she's young. I respect that, actually. So the question such people should be asking is: what skill could I gain that is compatible with that?
Example: being a qualified paramedic/EMT. Why? Ski patrols need them. People get hurt skiing. They always will.
I respect the ability to live frugally (as the author did), especially in order to gain experiences. After all, you won't be young forever. You won't be here forever. How much happier will it make you to live in a small house in a sea of suburbia as a billing code administrator for a health insurance company? But hey, at least you have a 401k and dental.
The author has several false dichotomies in here (IMHO). For example, comparing the "dirtbag" lifestyle to the "rich". There's a whole lot in between there.
Also, living paycheck to paycheck is stressful. So is not having options (eg decision fatigue [1]).
Being a journalist is perhaps not the best choice.
The people people live one paycheck away from being destitute varies but usually it's not because they want to be a ski bum. It's generally because they've taken on long term expenses they can barely afford. It's because they've convinced themselves they need to provide certain things for their children and families, often because they didn't have it themselves growing up. Things like paying for their college, living in a massive house and so on.
In providing these material things I so often see people who don't see their children and bring negativity home because they hate their lives. What good does that do anyone?
So many of the decisions people make I find is to have what other people think they should have. Family, neighbours, friends.
I can't help but feel that the author still misses the point.
>> So the question such people should be asking is: what skill could I gain that is compatible with that?
Having seen people go through this thought process, SOO many get it wrong. If you want to ski all the time, you shouldn't be an EMT because money season for those gigs in ski town is the winter. You should find a seasonal job where money season is opposite of ski season. Carpentry/home building is a natural fit, money season is summer not winter, and can pay well enough to work half the year and ski half the year. Another popular gig for ski bums is professional fishing. You can make enough money in a few months fishing in the spring/summer to spend the rest of the time skiing.
> Carpentry/home building is a natural fit, money season is summer not winter
I understand your point (and it's a good one) but it lends itself to a different lifestyle, one that such a ski bum might not be interested in.
That is, if you're going to live year-round in Boulder, for example, and are looking to establish roots then it makes sense. When you're young, that's not necessarily what you're looking for. There's a freedom of sorts of being able to fit everything you own into your car so you can go rock-climbing in the summer, skiing in the winter and so on.
If you have a trade, you typically have tools, and a work vehicle and benefit from having a reputation, a network, contacts and repeat customers. It's not better or worse, just more rooted.
But there are jobs you can get working in the off-season to support yourself of course. Yachting springs to mind. While the Caribbean season overlaps with the North American winter, the Mediterranean season and Asian seasons don't.
> The people people live one paycheck away from being destitute varies ... generally because they've taken on long term expenses they can barely afford.
Bare-minimun necessary expenses like a place to live, a way to get to work, sensible insurance, and the miscellaneous expenses of life like groceries and clothing approach or exceed minimum wage in many areas. I'd argue that the power dynamics of the employment market cause prevailing wages to tend asymptotically toward this level. There's certainly an element of materialist culture that results in some number of people parking leased BMWs in McMansions to keep up with the Joneses, or of YOLO irresponsibility with adrenaline junkies spending their whole paycheck on adventure gear. But there's also on the order of a million ordinary Walmart cashiers making $11 an hour while working 30 hour weeks so the company doesn't have to pay benefits. Those people don't have to be either irresponsible or greedy to live paycheck to paycheck, even with good finances that's the default.
While I grant you minimum wage isn't livable almost anywhere in the US (in case that was your point), that's not really what I was talking about.
So many people living paycheck-to-paycheck are living well beyond the minimum. Multiple cars, huge house, private schools, college savings plans, vacation homes, expensive hobbies and so on.
Part of this trap is people convincing themselves they need all these things.
In my experience, this often springs from their own childhoods, remembering what they didn't have and over-correcting for that by making sure their kids do not "go without". In doing so, they often rob themselves and their kids of quality time together, which (IMHO) trumps a lot of material things.
> How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund? How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund?
Uh, lady, you’re 37 years old. If you seriously want a kid, you need to approach finding a spouse with the same seriousness and intention you (admirably) now approach finances. Otherwise, it ain’t gonna happen.
I had my first kid at age 34, and part of my deeply regrets not going sooner (wife is much younger). I had some serious health issues by 45, which impeded by ability to raise my kids the way I wanted.
Adopting in 40s? Will the parent even still be alive when the kid graduates college? With good luck, genes, and good diet/exercise, yes. Otherwise, likely not.
Life expectancy for a 40 year old in the US is ~80. It is very likely that with an average lifestyle the parents will be around after the child has graduated college.
They often don’t even let you adopt at that age. I knew some 40+ yo families that adopted overseas due to age restrictions. One family adopted from China and one from Eastern Europe.
After years of living for the moment and YOLOing, author felt bad because she was in her 30s and didnt have wealth, then her parents gave her a large lump sum of money and she was able to apply things she learned from financial management books. The end.
Read between the lines there. She describes him the way people describe their significant others and not the way people generally describe mentors and/or business partners. People don't generally know their landlords well enough to get an understanding of the details of their business and landlords don't tend to rent stuff out at highly discounted rates without very specific business reasons or emotional attachment.
Yeah I was waiting for the point in this article where it became about "outdoorsy types" and not the author but it never happened. I'd be embarrassed too, mismanaging money and relying on my parents support at 34 years old. I guess the author was just so embarrassed that she published this article about it.
Great job with the antagonizing, clickbait title though. I'm guessing "My Tone-deaf Autobiography about How Irresponsible I am" was thrown out.
Why are people critical of being supported by your parents in your 30's? Because that's not "normal" or "proper" or unfair on those who don't have that support? Or for a real reason that's bad according to some fundamental moral standard? We're all supported by our parents to some extent. Why is it so wrong for late-support outliers to exist? That sounds like being a teenager when everyone is trying to make it look like they're independent but really their mum still does their washing and cooks their dinner because it's shameful to be supported by your parents.
In my country, due to high house prices, adult professionals often buy their first house with money from their parents because they can't otherwise afford it. It's call "The bank of mum and dad". Is that irresponsible? Is it OK only after it's become common but was wrong for the first few people who did it?
At least in the US, it’s seen as not being able to be individualistic and make it on your own. There’s a very high value to being able to not be reliant on anyone - literally anyone or anything. Government handouts to family support to even the help of friends - there’s a strong desire to be able to do everything by yourself.
If your parents helped you get your house, it’s not only a sign of likely coming from a privileged background (not many households in the US can just give their kids a downpayment on a house…) but it’s also a sign that you couldn’t even do what others have managed on their own. As many people do it without the bank of mom and dad and do it without having come from a background of privilege - it doesn’t look good.
Some will rationalize it and talk about keeping money in the family or what not - but most Americans see it from a mile away as somewhat shameful or regrettable. Keeping money in the family is also somewhat shameful in itself as it is something typically very privileged people do and it is seen as keeping the money out of the rest of us. (Creating royal families and a class of nobility essentially)
I think you might be missing cultural differences here.
I can't speak for the UK but here in Germany people usually don't just "buy a house" in their 20s, because of the debt involved (guess we are very opposed to debt). In my experience that would happen only at least 10 years later, when you have saved up a sizable down payment. Also selling a house again is a really big deal, kinda rare. There's not a lot of switching, like I hear from some US friends.
So yes, this has nothing to do with support from your parents or general income/wealth bracket. If you are standing on your own feet, you move out to a cheap apartment, often for the first time with your partner. Also please remember that we have a lot less campus universities, people usually live in a small apartment in the city they are studying in (same with vocational training) and not on campus.
(Please correct me if you don't think that a sizable portion of people in the US buy a house before they are 30, no matter if they are "filthy rich" or just working a normal job)
And now for a completely made up theory: If you're going into debt for your degree maybe you don't care as much to get into more debt if you move into a house when starting a job, because you're already in debt. But if you got through uni without getting into debt, either you don't want to do that, or (more likely) you wouldn't even get a loan from the bank here, if you never worked before.
Housing loans here are low interest relatively. Paying as little as you can to get into a house is generally the go to advice. Multiple reasons: rents here can be quite high and buying a house can be near the same cost (not true in all markets). Appreciation on real estate is constantly happening in the US. (Meaning you will make money if you sell and move to a lower cost region) Investing your overly large down payment into the market is generally preferred instead of putting it into the house. It allows you to have better leverage and get better returns. If I can put my money into a market that returns 6-8% YOY instead of a loan that is 3%, gonna do that… It’s simple maths about which one will likely turn out better.
I’m not sure how much people put down for a payment in Germany but in US, it’s 3.5% to 20% as the norm. 20% being what was traditionally done but more and more people are finding ways to put down less and it is financially more optimal a lot of times as real estate is appreciating quickly and the market is booming too.
There are also some tax incentives for house ownership that aren’t available to renters. The US is setup for homeowners, not renters.
But I don’t think all of this is the main reason why they try to not rely on the bank of mom and dad… the individualism thing is more to do with that.
Maybe it is normal in your country, but where I am from in the US, parents want their kids to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. The author herself said it was embarrassing. I'm not sure what the economic situation is in your country, but housing is very expensive in the US too. But hey, if it gets expensive enough then parents will start buying their kids houses...
Yeah, half my coworkers have been super outdoorsy types, all of them are doing fine financially. I don't think there's any statistical evidence that outdoorsy types are less financially responsible.
In fact it may be the opposite correlation, as those that can partake in outdoorsy activities frequently are probably better off than average.
The older the company I mix with, the more I realize how common it is for parents to give their kids a huge leg up financially. I am one of the only people in my friend group to not have been given the equivalent of a large home down payment by the time they were thirty.
Huh you have nice friends. My parents a rich and the only thing they gave me directly was a rent payment on a flat I was leaving when I moved abroad . They paid the $1000 rent for 6 months in case it didnt pan out and needee to crash back.
That was amazingly nice but a house downpayment, I d feel like cheating at life.
My understanding is that it's pretty common on the US coasts (i.e. the major metros where housing is super unaffordable).
I imagine it's a self feeding cycle. Young adults can't purchase homes, so their parents cosign and give a big down payment. Then sellers are able to ask more because wealthy parents are backing the sale, which just makes housing even more unaffordable.
Even so, the safety net can be useful. I have a friend who knows his parents have >1m available, and he knows that given their spending patterns, the returns on investments and actuarial tables, it's likely a $2m windfall will come his way within the next 20 years.
That allows a wildly different lifestyle. He can spend 100% of what he earns, and still
- retire early
- buy a large home
- send his kids to uni
- enjoy quality of life of the top 15%
Not having to buy a home, invest in stocks, reserve money for retirement, savings etc, is a big deal. Meanwhile other friends who have no such parents are more stuck in the rat race and will likely work till an old age retirement, not have a big home, will struggle with kids' education blablabla.
The other thing is that if he fucks up, his parents will help him out. This is one of the reasons I think that he started his own business and continued through years of no-income, whereas others had no such luxury to fail for a few years. e.g. there's plenty of people who, if they had not climbed the corporate ladder the past few years, would permanently be locked out of the housing market. He has no such problem, as if shit really hits the fan there's always a safety net. Your parents might be reserved, but unless they're quite unique, they'll definitely step in if you really fall.
Lastly, don't think it applies to you but I find as kids get older and the 'house' discussion comes up, suddenly rich parents step-in in ways they wouldn't have before (e.g. to fund a fun lifestyle). I've seen this housing-purchase support so often and it can't be overstated how much of a leg up this can be. And even if no support is given, inheritance of rich parents typically covers the mortgage and then some mid-life.
Don't mean to make it too personal and dump a lot of 'you're actually privileged' on you, I don't know you so I really can't say, every family is different. But on a more general note, having rich parents is definitely useful even if there's not been much financial help so far.
> was able to apply things she learned from financial management books
some people learn this early (the author's friend who grew up poor), and some people learn this late (the author), and some people never get a chance to learn this lesson, ever (not mentioned, the resort bums who reach 40 years old full of sports injuries, zero savings with no future and no more ability to ski).
in any case, the author seems self-aware enough to know that there will be comments on the internet like yours. she expresses remorse for having gone through this path on crutches. at least she has a story to share. someone who "retired" early from a corporate finance job with a couple of million in investments (whose life the author was only a few decisions away from), goes out and finally lives his dream never having lost anything is about as uninteresting as a trust fund kid exploring the world.
2. A positive review is written, that attracts more people
3. Because of the increased amount of people going to certain place, a hotel and a restaurant is built.
4. Restaurant workers and hotel workers need a place to live, so they build houses.
5. Houses need a power plant, water, trash service... police stations, fire stations, healthcare.
6. Nature is now gone.
7. The guy in living next to the formerly popular outdoor spot feels like having fun in the outdoors. The cycle is repeated until all outdoor spots are gone.
Humans have no predators. We are effectively an invasive species that does not seek balance with the environment and thrive at the expense of the balance that nature has created in an unsustainable manner.
IMO problem the author had is she had too much money too early in her career and therefore didn't get thrown in the deep end with regard to using it efficiently.
I'm going to assume she grew up in a fairly successful middle class household based on education and some other details in the articles so it's a pretty safe bet money wasn't something she grew up learning how to use efficiently to "level up" one's life.
She's already starting from a deficit because she's a women of how society emphasizes wealth as an indicator for societal success for men more than women so she's not gonna spend her formative years having people tell her to chase the dollar.
Basically her parents didn't teach her and society didn't make her teach herself so it took her 20yr to figure it out.
It's all about finding a balance. I'm outdoorsy and have more money than I know what to do with.
Keep the career, keep investing and keep exploring.
You don't need to quit your job, just make sure its one the does allow flexibility. If its just not working out you may need to suck it up to get a decent job title that will let you jump across to a company that allows you more flexibility. A 2-5 year endeavour but definitely possible.
Outdoorsy gear is expensive, no. Overpriced.
Don't buy new. Seriously learn to DIY a bit and repair things. It's easier than you think and a source of accomplishment comes with it.
Finally you don't need years off. Long breaks scattered is much better. If you found the right job you'll actually miss it while away, then miss going outdoors while on the job. Absence should make the heart grow fonder for either part of your life.
Ignore the click-bait title. This is one woman's coming of age story as she learns to plan for her future; well written and with good self-understanding.
Anyone have money but not enough Time? I see MMM for FIRE, but I'm looking for something time related. I suppose something like Efficiency Is Everything but more extreme like MMM, but for time.
Maybe I just need to save a bit more and retire. I just love my job and having coworkers, I don't want to give up the 40hr/week job.
Arm chair psychologist for a second, but this sounds like issues with self control and commitment. Plently of outdoorsy people exist and do interesting things without throwing everything a way with reckless spending.
>But these are just the flashes through the fog, clues to an unpleasant memory I’ve blocked out. Because when I think too hard about the truth, it hurts my head: I have no idea where all my money went.
Just look at your bank account and credit card statements? First step in managing your money, is evaluating how you're spending it.
,,What if there was a better way? What if we could normalize using rich-people tactics to continue living happily as if we were broke?''
I'm rich _because_ I lived my 20s like I was broke. I went to the other extreme than the author, which is also unhealthy though, finding the balance is just hard.
137 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 203 ms ] threadI was one of the few to do Community college, live with parents, then when my job required moving, my gf. I didn't eat out. I didn't buy new stuff.
My poor friends buy/lease new cars, Apple products, take out, alcohol at bars, etc...
I still don't do this.
I don't expect these people to save 30k/yr. I expect them to save 5k/yr, but they squander it.
They make sufficient money, they spend it on marketed products.
You usually aren’t born needing to pay $100, and having $80, there are probably decisions you make that put you more or less likely to be in that situation, some obvious, some not.
Sometimes you do get shit luck, but I think there are always ways to mitigate the negative consequences of bad luck, and maximize the consequences of good luck.
We have a lot of control over how our lives turn out here in the US, though not complete control, and it’s worth remembering that.
It is legitimately difficult and incredibly stressful to work in the service industry in San Fran unless you've lucked into being able to live in the downtown on the cheap. The suburbs that are affordable are hours away by car and more by public transit.
That’s a choice, and exactly what I’m talking about. Everything is a trade-off and while you can’t control everything, you can control a lot of things.
One example I like to think of in this situation is a person I knew from my childhood, who struggled. If you asked him, he'd tell you how hard it is out there, and how many times life had giving him the short end of the stick. In many ways, he was right. However, when you start looking at his choices, you begin to see a pattern.
He had a hard time living on his own, and had to move back into his mom's house at one point. If you asked him, it'd be due to a roommate situation that fell through, sticking him with a lease on a 2BR apartment that bled him dry. But if you dug in, you'd find out he signed that lease after his potential roommate backed out, and he never tried to fill the second bedroom. He was paying for a 2BR on near-minimum wage salary. He could not afford this, he should have never made this decision, and yet if you ask him, it's the result of the bad hand he got dealt due to the roommate.
Was it tough, having a roommate back out? Yes. Did he need to sign that 2BR lease anyway? No. Did he need to leave the second BR empty for the duration of the lease? No.
You're mostly coming from an angle of personal choice but relocating yourself a significant distance costs a lot of money, it can be a financial burden to move across country or even across state. There are people who can voluntarily escape their situation (like your buddy) but there are a big portion that are just stuck there involuntarily.
I'd add that it's also a bit unfair to judge people whose solutions seem solvable but are in tough spots. I don't know if you've ever lived through a period of high stress (I was a game developer for a while and worked a lot of overtime while suffering from OSA) but when you don't have room to breathe it can be hard to puzzle a way out of your situation. You're just focusing on surviving with what you've got and all your energy is going into it, you don't have the presence of mind to logically consider your options and decide to cut your losses and run.
For example, it costs money to move out of SF, yes, but it also costs money to stay in SF, which is something you'd figure out if you stopped and evaluated the options.
It's hard, I empathize with that, but it's no excuse. Everything is hard, and having the presence of mind to logically consider your options is your responsibility. Not taking that time is not a luxury people in those situations usually have, but seem to think they do because "do nothing" is always an option, no matter how costly it ends up actually being.
I think it's fair to judge someone based on their decisions, doubly so for their decisions in a tough spot. There are always good choices to be made in a given situation, and not making those good choices (even if they're limited) is the responsibility of the individual, and nobody else.
Further, I don't think what I did in stressful situations is relevant to this conversation at all, since we're talking about what one should do. Saying, "One should panic, and that's okay." is not accurate, I don't think.
Surely it's understandable, but it's not what one ought to do.
probably lazy and dumb, yeah, that's it.
i feel better already.
For most in this predicament, it has nothing to do with being bad with money. It has everything to do with their income being 80% of their essential bills.
I don't think this is someone who can't cover essential bills with their salary. This is the trap kids fall into (my early 20's self included) when they first start making real money and it feels endless.
It's not endless. It's very easy to fritter away.
To this day, I still don't feel the urge to buy things on impulse, or because peers have them or do trendy things.
Yeah it was a little intoxicating and I def overdid it. No regrets tho.
Moving to America (sfba) quickly fixed that. Now I’m back to being pretty frugal (but not too much) and investing in asset building. Turns out that’s more rewarding.
But your early to mid 20’s are a great time to go a little crazy if you can. It will never again feel the same. You have little responsibility and lots of time to catch up later.
I’m not stingy. I’m sane. They’re the ones going bankrupt ;)
20 years later: They’re married with kids and I’m single. Perhaps I really looked stingy ;)
Moral of the story: People in average are de facto pushed to consume all their margin.
I wish to retire in a few years and they in a few decades.
What can you possibly be eating for $5
I think some people can treat eating as more utilitarian, while having a great meal or even a halfway decent meal is a true pleasure and an experience worth having as often as possible for myself. The small pleasure is what makes the grind feel worthwhile.
I fully expect to walk out $25-$30 lighter after a basic entree/lunch, a drink and a tip, even if eating alone on a lunch break. A date with my wife ( on the low end) $70, bring out the whole family ($100)
Do we have significantly different average prices. Maybe a pre-made gas station sandwich or single fast food sandwich could cost $5
A $5 meal sounds like a chore, an amazing roadside Shack find! or absolute trash ingredients not worth eating.
How do you do it?
Don't get me wrong, of course there are genuinely poor people. But not far over half of the population.
I was raised on welfare myself and started out my early twenties with minimum wage jobs including factory work. Yet I always had savings, the idea that I couldn't cover a $1000 emergency would be insane to me, especially structurally.
Did that mean I had to live with my parents longer than I'd have liked to? Yes. I also didn't have a car and took the bus. I had a cheap Android phone. Wore secondhand clothes. I rarely ate out, and in my first 25 years of my life I never, ever, just went somewhere to get a coffee.
But I did have a home, transport, clothes, a smartphone, food and coffee, and also savings.
I don't want to victim-blame, there's certainly many who're trapped in a predicament. And it certainly helped being young, healthy, flexible, without kids, there's an immeasurable privilege to that situation versus the contrary (old, sick, with dependents). But I also saw plenty who weren't trapped and spent a ton on a way too expensive lease car they didn't need. Or who always had the latest iphone, and also had a minimum wage job. Or who rented a place downtown, instead of 20 minutes commute for a 30% discount. Those are lifestyle choices, which is completely fine to make, but not unconditionally. Once you have an emergency fund and you prioritize the short term over the long-term, it's simple a personal preference. But if you have no emergency fund, or if you have long-term goals you want to meet, you need to manage it. I have lots of friends who don't even spend the 1 hour a week to make and monitor a very basic budget for example.
I mean let's be frank, median household income is $64k in the US. It's about the richest in the world, especially if you exclude the tiny rich states that have a few million people like Luxembourg there's nothing to really rival it. The idea that <1 week of median household income is an emergency for 4 out of 5 households is statistically not in line with 'for most it's just their predicament, not related to lifestyle or financial planning or management'.
Lack of financial literacy is another problem that, I think, exacerbates the above.
I suspect this becomes increasingly likely as one progresses.
I have become much better at important things. However, anxiety has increased - largely because I have shifted from blind confidence to educated awareness.
This is a near meaningless way to compare things. I am not sure we even have an appropriate, widely used and widely computed/measured metric for this.
What matters is not the size of the median household income, but the ratio of this income to likely household expense.
If you need to put far more of your income into your self-managed retirement account(s), or to pay for healthcare that isn't covered by a national insurance scheme, or to pay for membership at a recreational facility that might otherwise have been free after local taxes, or to cover current, future or past educational costs that would be an order or magnitude or more less in another locale, or to cover day care that might have been provided by your government, your effective income is not well measured by its absolute magnitude.
How so? I don't see the link between not moving out as soon as expected, meaning my parents must've not been financially dependent on me in any way.
Would you for example suppose that parents who're in need of financial support would have their kids move out earlier than expected? I don't really follow your point.
So the parents got an X m2 apartment for N EUR (below market rate). When the children move out, they now have to pay N+M EUR because with 2 people they would only have been alotted an X-Y m2 apartment. Maybe an edge case, I know.
Because my dad was dependent on the state (disability) he received a supplemental income to get his living standard to the absolute legal minimum (set at 70% of minimum wage) that all Dutch citizens have a right to regardless of circumstance.
However, the government assumes that if there's say 4 people living in one home, that they're a household that can share certain costs, e.g. rent, heating, furniture etc. This means the minimum living standard can be attained with less money, so they cut your benefits. The more adults there are, the higher the discount. As I aged from a kid to a young adult, living at home meant his income was cut.
Second, any income that the household makes (e.g. from my job), would be cut from his benefits, as we shared a household. e.g. if I earned 500 euros, he'd get 500 euros less.
This meant that to live at home, a large portion of my minimum wage earnings (parttime, next to my studies) would go simply to make up for the cuts to my dad's benefits. Minimum wage is about 1500 here, so working a 33% job would net me 0 euros as the entire 500 went to my dad who got cut from 900 to 400 due to my job.
It's a weird system that definitely is grounded in some sound logic, but also creates edge cases that aren't creating useful outcomes. It pushed me out of the house, into an expensive housing market, left my dad (who wasn't very healthy) alone in a house, that also happened to be a social home that now has empty bedrooms. It also could've pushed me to quit my job as there was no real incentive in the short-term to work, but I knew long-term it wasn't viable.
It’s like a “pursue your passion” dilemma. If your passion is whitewater rafting, employment in that field will pay differently than, say, many kinds of employment facilitated by a computer science degree.
Same dilemma goes for clergy, who often have marketable and lucrative skills they leave behind to pursue their calling.
There is some truth to that, but there is also a fair amount of truth to the fact that a lot of people list things as "essential" that really aren't.
For many it's a trade off of being poor or looking poor, and they would much rather be poor than look poor.
Money isn't that different than dieting. It's a pretty simple equation.
Money in >= money out => Broke.
Money in < money out => Not broke.
With dieting, yes exercise more, but for the love of God, stop eating so damn much.
With money, yes get a better paying job, but for the love of God stop buying so much stupid shit.
The same goes for budgeting. Saying "spend less and get a better paying job" doesn't really help compared to detailed instructions on how to open a savings account and automatically deposit 5% of your pay into it, reviewing your monthly expenditure, changing habits like ordering delivery food every weekend, long term investments like buying your own washing machine, or pursuing a qualification that will help you earn more.
I guess the point I was trying to make is more that doing these things is not impossible. It is just a matter of being properly informed (which is in itself a difficult task).
I've found it pretty easy to save money almost on accident with a six figure income, even without keeping too close an eye on expenditures. Helps if you skip buying the luxury auto, don't pick the most expensive living quarters you can, keep eating out under $10-15/day, and if you can be lucky+conscientious enough not to have catastrophic healthcare expenses, but you don't even have to do all of that and you can save 20% and pay your taxes.
It's certainly possible closer to the median, but the belt has to be tighter.
Bottom third? Pinching pennies. Pick marginal housing. $25/week groceries. Turn down social invitations when your gas/transport budget's up. And saving for that $1000 emergency will still be slow.
There's something in a part of some people's psychology that wants to imagine that if you're just disciplined enough you can make it all happen no matter what the constraints are. Discipline can make a difference, but not the same scale of difference that greater resource inflows do.
And worse, when you inevitably need to tap it, it will be equally slow to refill.
Reading stuff like this makes me feel old. The - new generation? - who seem to always publicly remind themselves that they're good enough after all and just like everyone else and normal and it's hard for us ... and now don't get me wrong: these things can be true. But I grew up not standing on a soapbox and exclaiming these things, and not thinking or writing in that way.
It's kind of a race to the bottom if everything is treated like you're an object and not a subject, as in, blowing around in the wind by objective forces that are external. There really is a mix of external and subjective forces at play, but we're reminded of the external with this style.
I would have said, "I fucked up. I used to be bad with money. Now I do this: __ __ __. "Bad with money" implies an immovable predicament and "I'm not alone" implies systemic forces at play. Again, the focus on the absolute and removal of the subject.
Yes, I'm extrapolating quite a bit from so little, it's just that this style of writing seems ubiquitous now.
Also, as someone on the younger side, this mentality is comforting. It's the comfort of existing within a school of fish. Despite unpredictable currents that act on you like an object, it's comforting to know that there are many of you. A few individuals disappear here and there, but chances are the school will survive. You're normal, you belong, things are hard, but you'll probably be fine.
More like the GP, however, I've gotten there not through identification with others but instead through the cultivation of a spiritual life philosophy.
Like GP, I also grow tired of hearing these voices too often. I have a little sister, who is 13 now, and she feels submitted to her fate. More often than not she feels like a candle in the wind (queue Elton John) instead of a captain at the helm.
But you're right, it is something to pay attention to. These little instances all add up to be statistically relevant and a source of knowledge for collective social truth-finding.
One thing I must insist on, philosophically, however, is that we are not often served by identifying with sub-par things. Personal identification is very useful for aspiring and evolving, but personal identification with the present or the past can unnecessarily keep you anchored to bad habits.
But even if she wasn't doing that and was indeed looking to normalize financial illiteracy by saying it's common and she's not the only one, I think that's a pretty healthy perspective. Yes she fucked up, which she acknowledges. But it can be healthy to not seek fault in you as a person or your character, but rather to seek fault in your behaviour, your lack of education on a topic, your views which may have been too biased for the short-term. After all, those things can be changed, it gives the individual agency and a feeling of control. I think the entire article acknowledged that the solution lied with her changing her views, her habits, her financial literacy, her financial management. I found it to the contrary of removal of the subject.
> I fucked up.
Was she not saying exactly those things? For example she says "I saw my folly" or "How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund? It wasn’t just that I’d only ever lived for my youth; maybe I’d only ever lived for myself. No wonder I was alone." It's quite clear she felt she fucked up and saw the issue with herself.
> I used to be bad with money. Now I do this: __ __ __.
Again, I felt she touched on this throughout the article, e.g. by saying things like "I’d started reading personal-finance books, analyzing my spending, and making budgets. I also started wearing sunscreen."
Pretty good description of toxic femininity.
(Or, to go even more hard-line, if you consider "choosing to not go into trades, medical specialties, or other high-career-wage-growth-per-input-hour-of-education career paths, when you have no reason to believe you're uniquely suited to/talented at the high-barrier-to-entry career path you've chosen instead, and thereby not especially likely to end up making money at it" to be "being bad at money.")
Who knows, maybe publishing it in Outside will reach someone?
I'd disagree, it's money management at that point.
I'm more concerned about those who are unprofitable every paycheck and growing debt, no way to cut expenses further. Probably due to high COL and lack of education, but I can't blame someone for living where they have family .
The much more interesting statistic would slice it by dollar: What percentage of dollars are owned by first-generation wealthy versus old money?
But the other metric is interesting too, something like an age x wealth product, the longer the wealth was held the higher the score, and the more wealth held the higher the score too. One could imagine like an area under net worth curve and create a histogram with decades of time as buckets, say across a 300 year span maybe?
The meme of "a high percent of people who are millionaires are first-generation millionaires" is pervasive. Googling this returns mostly investment scheme websites and CNBC/USA Today/etc clickbait quoting "The Millionaire Next Door", and talking about how "If They Did It, You Can Do It Too!" -- it's like something straight out of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Further, it’s questionable what counts as inheritance vs hard work. If you turned the family business from a 5M dollar company to a 500M dollar company that’s difficult, but easier than starting from scratch.
I remember looking at lifetime earnings of software engineers and tabulating a bunch of generic lifetime gross salaries in general. It's in the millions range for sure but it's not near anywhere in the $100M level.
A career lasting 50yr at $50k/yr --> $2.5M gross; $500k/yr --> $25M gross.
I remember talking with coworkers about bikes and one was recommend bikes to another coworker who wanted to get into cycling and he was recommending some pricey options. I remember thinking that if you want to get into cycling, you really don't have to spend a lot. Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling. But for some people, half the fun is spending money on the toys. That same coworker admitted a few weeks later that he bought himself yet another bike, one that was several thousand dollars. Meanwhile I was stressing with my $1200 bike purchase as that felt like a lot of money.
“Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling.”
People can of course enjoy a hobby or activity and get something out of it that’s not the thing you think they should be getting out of it and that’s awesome. It’s okay if the fun is in spending the money, and it’s okay if you have a $1200 bike and don’t care about that stuff. They’re both equal ways of approaching any given hobby.
Money is freaking weird - food and essentials are also a complicating factor here though. I like to eat well so my food budget is about 150$/week which is about three times as high (for two of us) as my parents paid for three of us.
Those days are long gone now, but it was highly satisfying to see the look of panic on athletic, rich banker’s face when some punk kid in a t-shirt, shorts, and cheap bike passed him going up a hill.
On my first day I met another solo hiker and he was kind of a gearhead - or showboat - because most of the time he talked about how light his gear is and what functions it has and apparently it was most important to him that I know how expensive it all was.
Same with bikes: if your goal is to ride a bike almost every bike that fits to the person riding it and us technically in good condition works.
I guess for a lot of people, gear really is a part of whatever hobby they're into. I used to be interested in photography and was showing some photos to some friends. They weren't anything amazing, but I was proud of them because I was starting to learn to compose photos and recognize good lighting. The camera I used wasn't anything special, though. Of course, one person who saw the photos immediately asked "What kind of equipment did you use?"
You weigh out what it’s worth to you for what you get out of it. You make the careful choice relative to everything you care about holistically and strategically.
The polarized ideas that you need to spend very little or an extreme amount are equally reductive. You should spend the amount you have carefully negotiated with yourself and your priorities.
For cycling in particular, you don’t need much to start out with. Slowly over time you may increase in fitness and time investment, community, goals. From there it becomes worth investing more IMO.
The way these kinds of things get expensive is if you buy all the passes and equipment but then only actually use it a few weeks a year.
I know a lot of people that do not make much money that have ski passes and nice equipment because their priorities are different.
I haven't heard any say they wanted to be regional champion.
If you compete with yourself, then changing your gear makes it hard to measure if you are getting better. Sometimes I think we compete with others when we don't need to.
More expensive bikes are more comfortable and may boost your speed a bit depending on circumstance. To assume that people who decide to invest a bit in a healthy, fun activity are ignorant of such basic metrics seems pretty cynical.
I would urge you to dig deeper because there is an enormous amount of value in this type of investment.
I guess they probably look at me spending hundreds on pc stuff and think the same thing.
Having been hanging out in ski bum circles for quite a few years now, this doesn't seem to be the case to me. Most of them buy their gear used via ski swaps, craigslist, etc. People with blatantly expensive gear like Arcteryx are routinely mocked. We like to joke that if you don't have duct tape on your ski clothing, you're nothing but a poser who must have just flown in from NYC that morning.
I love getting out there and cycling (just got back from a ride in fact). I also love geeking out about bikes and bike gear, and I’m not sure why you say it “shouldn’t” be half about that. Why shouldn’t it? I appreciate the engineering that goes into them, the latest theories as to how to make bikes better, the design and aesthetics, the component choices and all the tradeoffs involved. Surely on Hacker News of all places, we’re allowed to geek out on such things? If you love cycling but refuse to allow yourself to appreciate how cool bikes are (regardless of age or price, btw), maybe you’re missing out on half the fun!
I by no means begrudge someone who enjoys geeking out about gear. I occasionally indulge. But for the most part I like to get my equipment as hand me downs or on craigslist. And I try to keep that equipment running as long as possible. I find that repairing stuff scratches my engineering itch and that going minimalist with gear helps me focus on the experience more.
I can so relate to that.
Fortunately my natural instincts appear to leave me with cash at end of month which I move to savings...but that is about the extent of my control over things.
The last time this happened to me, my solution was to take even more debt to move to a new job that doubled my salary. I had a plan to be debt free in ~2 years, but that kinda fell apart with COVID. I suppose I could try and do that again, but I’m not in a position professionally to take a better job.
At this point, refusal to do it is just outright laziness/irresponsibility.
So take the author. She wants to be a ski bum while she's young. I respect that, actually. So the question such people should be asking is: what skill could I gain that is compatible with that?
Example: being a qualified paramedic/EMT. Why? Ski patrols need them. People get hurt skiing. They always will.
I respect the ability to live frugally (as the author did), especially in order to gain experiences. After all, you won't be young forever. You won't be here forever. How much happier will it make you to live in a small house in a sea of suburbia as a billing code administrator for a health insurance company? But hey, at least you have a 401k and dental.
The author has several false dichotomies in here (IMHO). For example, comparing the "dirtbag" lifestyle to the "rich". There's a whole lot in between there.
Also, living paycheck to paycheck is stressful. So is not having options (eg decision fatigue [1]).
Being a journalist is perhaps not the best choice.
The people people live one paycheck away from being destitute varies but usually it's not because they want to be a ski bum. It's generally because they've taken on long term expenses they can barely afford. It's because they've convinced themselves they need to provide certain things for their children and families, often because they didn't have it themselves growing up. Things like paying for their college, living in a massive house and so on.
In providing these material things I so often see people who don't see their children and bring negativity home because they hate their lives. What good does that do anyone?
So many of the decisions people make I find is to have what other people think they should have. Family, neighbours, friends.
I can't help but feel that the author still misses the point.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fr...
Having seen people go through this thought process, SOO many get it wrong. If you want to ski all the time, you shouldn't be an EMT because money season for those gigs in ski town is the winter. You should find a seasonal job where money season is opposite of ski season. Carpentry/home building is a natural fit, money season is summer not winter, and can pay well enough to work half the year and ski half the year. Another popular gig for ski bums is professional fishing. You can make enough money in a few months fishing in the spring/summer to spend the rest of the time skiing.
I understand your point (and it's a good one) but it lends itself to a different lifestyle, one that such a ski bum might not be interested in.
That is, if you're going to live year-round in Boulder, for example, and are looking to establish roots then it makes sense. When you're young, that's not necessarily what you're looking for. There's a freedom of sorts of being able to fit everything you own into your car so you can go rock-climbing in the summer, skiing in the winter and so on.
If you have a trade, you typically have tools, and a work vehicle and benefit from having a reputation, a network, contacts and repeat customers. It's not better or worse, just more rooted.
But there are jobs you can get working in the off-season to support yourself of course. Yachting springs to mind. While the Caribbean season overlaps with the North American winter, the Mediterranean season and Asian seasons don't.
Bare-minimun necessary expenses like a place to live, a way to get to work, sensible insurance, and the miscellaneous expenses of life like groceries and clothing approach or exceed minimum wage in many areas. I'd argue that the power dynamics of the employment market cause prevailing wages to tend asymptotically toward this level. There's certainly an element of materialist culture that results in some number of people parking leased BMWs in McMansions to keep up with the Joneses, or of YOLO irresponsibility with adrenaline junkies spending their whole paycheck on adventure gear. But there's also on the order of a million ordinary Walmart cashiers making $11 an hour while working 30 hour weeks so the company doesn't have to pay benefits. Those people don't have to be either irresponsible or greedy to live paycheck to paycheck, even with good finances that's the default.
So many people living paycheck-to-paycheck are living well beyond the minimum. Multiple cars, huge house, private schools, college savings plans, vacation homes, expensive hobbies and so on.
Part of this trap is people convincing themselves they need all these things.
In my experience, this often springs from their own childhoods, remembering what they didn't have and over-correcting for that by making sure their kids do not "go without". In doing so, they often rob themselves and their kids of quality time together, which (IMHO) trumps a lot of material things.
Uh, lady, you’re 37 years old. If you seriously want a kid, you need to approach finding a spouse with the same seriousness and intention you (admirably) now approach finances. Otherwise, it ain’t gonna happen.
But I guess that’s another article.
Adopting in 40s? Will the parent even still be alive when the kid graduates college? With good luck, genes, and good diet/exercise, yes. Otherwise, likely not.
50%: some combo of good luck, genes, diet, exercise
50%: some combo of bad luck, genes, diet, exercise
Great job with the antagonizing, clickbait title though. I'm guessing "My Tone-deaf Autobiography about How Irresponsible I am" was thrown out.
In my country, due to high house prices, adult professionals often buy their first house with money from their parents because they can't otherwise afford it. It's call "The bank of mum and dad". Is that irresponsible? Is it OK only after it's become common but was wrong for the first few people who did it?
If your parents helped you get your house, it’s not only a sign of likely coming from a privileged background (not many households in the US can just give their kids a downpayment on a house…) but it’s also a sign that you couldn’t even do what others have managed on their own. As many people do it without the bank of mom and dad and do it without having come from a background of privilege - it doesn’t look good.
Some will rationalize it and talk about keeping money in the family or what not - but most Americans see it from a mile away as somewhat shameful or regrettable. Keeping money in the family is also somewhat shameful in itself as it is something typically very privileged people do and it is seen as keeping the money out of the rest of us. (Creating royal families and a class of nobility essentially)
I can't speak for the UK but here in Germany people usually don't just "buy a house" in their 20s, because of the debt involved (guess we are very opposed to debt). In my experience that would happen only at least 10 years later, when you have saved up a sizable down payment. Also selling a house again is a really big deal, kinda rare. There's not a lot of switching, like I hear from some US friends.
So yes, this has nothing to do with support from your parents or general income/wealth bracket. If you are standing on your own feet, you move out to a cheap apartment, often for the first time with your partner. Also please remember that we have a lot less campus universities, people usually live in a small apartment in the city they are studying in (same with vocational training) and not on campus.
(Please correct me if you don't think that a sizable portion of people in the US buy a house before they are 30, no matter if they are "filthy rich" or just working a normal job)
And now for a completely made up theory: If you're going into debt for your degree maybe you don't care as much to get into more debt if you move into a house when starting a job, because you're already in debt. But if you got through uni without getting into debt, either you don't want to do that, or (more likely) you wouldn't even get a loan from the bank here, if you never worked before.
I’m not sure how much people put down for a payment in Germany but in US, it’s 3.5% to 20% as the norm. 20% being what was traditionally done but more and more people are finding ways to put down less and it is financially more optimal a lot of times as real estate is appreciating quickly and the market is booming too.
There are also some tax incentives for house ownership that aren’t available to renters. The US is setup for homeowners, not renters.
But I don’t think all of this is the main reason why they try to not rely on the bank of mom and dad… the individualism thing is more to do with that.
In fact it may be the opposite correlation, as those that can partake in outdoorsy activities frequently are probably better off than average.
That was amazingly nice but a house downpayment, I d feel like cheating at life.
I imagine it's a self feeding cycle. Young adults can't purchase homes, so their parents cosign and give a big down payment. Then sellers are able to ask more because wealthy parents are backing the sale, which just makes housing even more unaffordable.
That allows a wildly different lifestyle. He can spend 100% of what he earns, and still
- retire early - buy a large home - send his kids to uni - enjoy quality of life of the top 15%
Not having to buy a home, invest in stocks, reserve money for retirement, savings etc, is a big deal. Meanwhile other friends who have no such parents are more stuck in the rat race and will likely work till an old age retirement, not have a big home, will struggle with kids' education blablabla.
The other thing is that if he fucks up, his parents will help him out. This is one of the reasons I think that he started his own business and continued through years of no-income, whereas others had no such luxury to fail for a few years. e.g. there's plenty of people who, if they had not climbed the corporate ladder the past few years, would permanently be locked out of the housing market. He has no such problem, as if shit really hits the fan there's always a safety net. Your parents might be reserved, but unless they're quite unique, they'll definitely step in if you really fall.
Lastly, don't think it applies to you but I find as kids get older and the 'house' discussion comes up, suddenly rich parents step-in in ways they wouldn't have before (e.g. to fund a fun lifestyle). I've seen this housing-purchase support so often and it can't be overstated how much of a leg up this can be. And even if no support is given, inheritance of rich parents typically covers the mortgage and then some mid-life.
Don't mean to make it too personal and dump a lot of 'you're actually privileged' on you, I don't know you so I really can't say, every family is different. But on a more general note, having rich parents is definitely useful even if there's not been much financial help so far.
some people learn this early (the author's friend who grew up poor), and some people learn this late (the author), and some people never get a chance to learn this lesson, ever (not mentioned, the resort bums who reach 40 years old full of sports injuries, zero savings with no future and no more ability to ski).
in any case, the author seems self-aware enough to know that there will be comments on the internet like yours. she expresses remorse for having gone through this path on crutches. at least she has a story to share. someone who "retired" early from a corporate finance job with a couple of million in investments (whose life the author was only a few decisions away from), goes out and finally lives his dream never having lost anything is about as uninteresting as a trust fund kid exploring the world.
1. People hike somewhere
2. A positive review is written, that attracts more people
3. Because of the increased amount of people going to certain place, a hotel and a restaurant is built.
4. Restaurant workers and hotel workers need a place to live, so they build houses.
5. Houses need a power plant, water, trash service... police stations, fire stations, healthcare.
6. Nature is now gone.
7. The guy in living next to the formerly popular outdoor spot feels like having fun in the outdoors. The cycle is repeated until all outdoor spots are gone.
Nature seeks balance by evolving creatures that have a reciprocal relationship with the environment. Every creature has a specific role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
Humans have no predators. We are effectively an invasive species that does not seek balance with the environment and thrive at the expense of the balance that nature has created in an unsustainable manner.
I'm going to assume she grew up in a fairly successful middle class household based on education and some other details in the articles so it's a pretty safe bet money wasn't something she grew up learning how to use efficiently to "level up" one's life.
She's already starting from a deficit because she's a women of how society emphasizes wealth as an indicator for societal success for men more than women so she's not gonna spend her formative years having people tell her to chase the dollar.
Basically her parents didn't teach her and society didn't make her teach herself so it took her 20yr to figure it out.
Keep the career, keep investing and keep exploring.
You don't need to quit your job, just make sure its one the does allow flexibility. If its just not working out you may need to suck it up to get a decent job title that will let you jump across to a company that allows you more flexibility. A 2-5 year endeavour but definitely possible.
Outdoorsy gear is expensive, no. Overpriced. Don't buy new. Seriously learn to DIY a bit and repair things. It's easier than you think and a source of accomplishment comes with it.
Finally you don't need years off. Long breaks scattered is much better. If you found the right job you'll actually miss it while away, then miss going outdoors while on the job. Absence should make the heart grow fonder for either part of your life.
Maybe I just need to save a bit more and retire. I just love my job and having coworkers, I don't want to give up the 40hr/week job.
Just look at your bank account and credit card statements? First step in managing your money, is evaluating how you're spending it.
I'm rich _because_ I lived my 20s like I was broke. I went to the other extreme than the author, which is also unhealthy though, finding the balance is just hard.