Would you retire at 30 and live frugally?
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
65 percent of jack shit is not enough to live on my guy.
-
65 percent of jack shit is not enough to live on my guy.
Good point, but also my question is pointless if you are already living frugally, because that would basically be "would you like more time and money?"
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
wrote last edited by [email protected]65% of what I spend rn would be unlivable
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
If I had the money to retire at 30, I'd be so much richer than I am now that even 65% of that would still be more than I'm getting now. But if I was the kind of person who earns that much, would I be content with that? We'll never know.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
You never know what the future holds. Much better to work now while you are in a good position to do so, than to be forced to work later on, when you have been out of the workforce for years.
-
Good point, but also my question is pointless if you are already living frugally, because that would basically be "would you like more time and money?"
Yes I would like more time and money thank you
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now.
Permanently? or like, adjusted for inflation? do I get rent control?
Because 65% of what I make now will be worth a lot less in 10 years.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I don't think most people could live on 65% of their current income. Many people are poor and can't handle a surprise $500 expense.
I could live happily on the median income of my area (NYC) - $113,400. Even if I got a more expensive apartment, I could make that work.
I do wonder about people's budgets sometimes. One of my friends has crushing medical, student, and credit card debt so they're always struggling. But another friend was like "I can't leave my job at [evil megacorp]! I need the money!" But when pressed slightly, their "needs" included broadway plays, fine dining, and every hot new game on steam (that they don't even play). Most people are probably between those two extremes.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
idk; I get work via commissions (is that the word?) and rarely, earning little money. But with this at least I would have a constant source of money, and would get some peace of mind, so maybe?
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
I think this question varies greatly depending on your current salary, if you have dependents, and what your cost of living looks like.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
If I could retire right now at 38, and kept my expenses at 100% of what they are right now, I'd still be choosing which bill can wait a week and a half past the due date to make sure we can all eat.
65% and we start drawing straws for who gets eaten this week.
-
idk; I get work via commissions (is that the word?) and rarely, earning little money. But with this at least I would have a constant source of money, and would get some peace of mind, so maybe?
Commissions doing what? Maybe we can find you some business here!
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
My initial response was Hell yeah! But, then I remembered my job will pay for the kids college, so I'd be crazy to make that trade.
-
I don't think most people could live on 65% of their current income. Many people are poor and can't handle a surprise $500 expense.
I could live happily on the median income of my area (NYC) - $113,400. Even if I got a more expensive apartment, I could make that work.
I do wonder about people's budgets sometimes. One of my friends has crushing medical, student, and credit card debt so they're always struggling. But another friend was like "I can't leave my job at [evil megacorp]! I need the money!" But when pressed slightly, their "needs" included broadway plays, fine dining, and every hot new game on steam (that they don't even play). Most people are probably between those two extremes.
I, personally, also prioritize living life.
What's the point of life if im going to eat rice and beans and never enjoy it. I'd simply resign.
My 'needs' include what makes me want to continue living, regardless of what it looks like from your perspective
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
Given the rate of inflation, and shrinkflation, I don’t think it’s economically feasible for many people to survive on 65% of their income. At least, I couldn’t. Especially not with two young boys who need clothing, a metric ton of food (and growing!), plus sports, etc. nope. I’m stuck n indentured servitude for the rest of my life.
-
I, personally, also prioritize living life.
What's the point of life if im going to eat rice and beans and never enjoy it. I'd simply resign.
My 'needs' include what makes me want to continue living, regardless of what it looks like from your perspective
My ‘needs’ include what makes me want to continue living, regardless of what it looks like from your perspective
My parents would fight about this sometimes. They would blur "need" and "want" together, and that caused difficulties. It's imprecise and, in my opinion, immature, to conflate the two categories. If you're looking at a budget and you smush everything into "needs", how are you going to know what to cut? The electric bill by any reasonable metric is more important than another lego death star, assuming you plan to continue living in society.
Furthermore, "I can't quit my job at [evil megacorp], because then I might not be able to do luxury dining experiences as often" is laughable. Like, sure, there's no way to live pure in our capitalist hellscape. We all have bills to pay. But highlighting "I like broadway" as the justification for "I help build AI used by ICE to deport people"? Come on. I'd respect it more if they just said out right that they don't give a shit about other people. At least that'd be honest.
-
Given the rate of inflation, and shrinkflation, I don’t think it’s economically feasible for many people to survive on 65% of their income. At least, I couldn’t. Especially not with two young boys who need clothing, a metric ton of food (and growing!), plus sports, etc. nope. I’m stuck n indentured servitude for the rest of my life.
Yeah this is why I don't have kids lol
-
Yeah this is why I don't have kids lol
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s a trade off. It’s not easy either. Even when I was married and had a partner that could tag in and help me out. It’s much harder now that I’m single and I no longer have backup. It’s not like there’s an instruction manual either; each kid/situation is distinct and different.
But you know what, there are moments (more often than not) when they do or say something amazing, and it feels like the world is not such a bad place after all; because of them.
It’s not perfect. We sometimes get mad at each other. But that’s any relationship; it’s love. And I wouldn’t trade it for any amount of money in the world.
-
If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?
30s are prime earning years – stick with it for a bit longer.
