> If you're a software developer in the first-world, you're making, what, $75k/year or more? If you spend wisely, you can live quite comfortably on $30k/year, at least before housing costs.

You've hit me on the head. That's very much what I make, and I actually live on less than $30k/year.

It's not even hard. No smart phone, no cable TV, cook my own meals, old car, ride bike to work, enjoy simple things like walking and frisbee (free). I've saved enough in 4 years I'm on the cusp of taking 4-5 years off to go adventuring.

> If that's what you want to do, that's fine---but don't pretend it would be impossible for you to cut back.

I feel this resistance from people all the time. They will very quickly tell you they need their iPhone, cable TV, latte and new clothes weekly.

Our society has it's wants and needs mixed up. Once you fix that, it's easy.

I'm not saying everyone should do this, it's just the answer I came up with. I know people who go the other way and also seem happy (though some not too) so it comes down to personal introspection abd preference.

I very rarely hear about FU money from people that don’t need millions of dollars to leave their job. It’s important (IMO) for people to know that that doesn’t necessarily _have_ to be the case.

Related is the sustainability of work: I don't want to need high earnings past 40. I want to retire into a second career I'll find more fulfilling but which might pay dramatically less. Higher pay now is the only way I can achieve this.

But I can fully understand a decision not to change to a much less paying alternative as it decreases the quality of life for an other part of every day. Considering the frightening fact that when you move away there is probably a chance that you cannot come back that easily. This may present a fear of trying out the alternatives.

While I realize this isn't an option for many people due to lack of opportunities, kids, lifestyle creep, etc., I have both planned for it and been very fortunate. So no, I'm not worried about it.

There is happiness and fulfillment to be found in a very reasonable dedication range. I work, like WORK work barely 5 hours a week from home and make $300k a year. My company is over the moon with my contributions.

I didn’t graduate last year. I put in the work, learned the craft and I have valuable contributions to give from my experiences. You will too someday. But right now you need to learn.

Sure, I could compromise on all of that. Couchsurf. Use the library (both for its books and its computers). Become a better cook to make more with less. Do other things with friends. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

But the mere term "compromise" implies "loss of originally-expected value", and there comes a point where I could have all the time in the world and not enjoy spending time on anything. Back to the OP, I question what Price does all day when he's not working odd jobs. I almost expected him to be an artist or novelist or somesuch.

I think I said in my original comment that threshold is 'to support the lifestyle one expects' - I purposefully left it open ended. My expectations are a result of my upbringing in a middle class household etc. Also, my point is about low income earners - the majority of the world.

I agree that if your goals in the economic game are to be in a position where you don't have to rely on a salaried income then I'm doing it all wrong. I've made the decision that enjoying the things I can do with the money I have now is worth more than saving more of it for some other end. One has to make choices. I might die tomorrow. Who knows? That said I do make plans for the future.

Secondly, what I really want to do is exactly what I'm doing right now, except for three days a week while still supporting a family. That means supplementing income with investments and owning a home to cut down on expenditure.

The opinion that the meaning of life is to be laser-focused on a single goal for a hundred hours a week is common, but I disagree with it. I don't think I'm productive or happy working even 40 hours, while in 32 or 24 I get much more done and can take better care of myself.

I can't really think of a time beyond my first job in which money was anything other than an academic point scoring exercise. It didn't feel that way at the time, but to be honest, if you just work and don't spend it all, a few years later you're basically immune to money issues.

I don't think that it makes sense to do a job primarily for the money. I think it leads to a boring life. Then again, I don't want to live in London/NY/whatever, so that's just like, my opinion, man.

If you're a software developer in the first-world, you're making, what, $75k/year or more? If you spend wisely, you can live quite comfortably on $30k/year, at least before housing costs.

Personally, my plan is to work full-time for the next ~10 years, putting every dime above the $30k/year mark into my mortgage and my retirement fund, and cut back to part time after that---I'll own my house, and with a couple decades of compound interest, my retirement fund will be set, too.

Most people in our position won't do this, though---they choose a higher standard of living (a new car every three years, a house at the very highest end of what they can afford, etc.) over working less. If that's what you want to do, that's fine---but don't pretend it would be impossible for you to cut back.

That's what I get from the article: the author's suggesting you do whatever it takes (including living on less money) to work less.

I live on on a $20,000/year salary because I can choose when and where I work. I can take the morning off and work late. I can work in the morning and take the evening off. I can travel for months at a time while working on my startup—like I did on a three month trip through Europe a few years ago, and planning to again this fall."

My wife & I have a couple academic friends and they make 1/4 our income probably, but they are unfireable & they also just took off for another 6 weeks stay in southern Europe at a family home this summer .. so there's that.

Guaranteed income & time flexibility are hard to measure in absolute dollars.

My wife & I are on the other hand on our 5th/6th job in our almost 20 year careers, never having had more than 2.5 weeks off consecutively. The hustle now is maximizing the dollars and building some alternative income streams so we can start to wind down the intensity in maybe 10 years and fully exit workforce in 20 years?

> why can't you buy elsewhere?

If you could see the view from my bedroom window, you'd understand. :)

I am always telling people that you reach a point where you have enough money to live the life you want. That point is different for everyone and it also depends on where you are in your life.

If I made twice as much money where I live now. It wouldn’t have an immediate effect on our life. Even now when I get a raise it just goes to “increasing my net worth”. It doesn’t really change too much of anything.

We could retire earlier. But my hobbies are computers and working out and traveling. I dont see myself fully retiring, maybe just doing consulting/contracting part of the year. As far as health insurance, my wife specifically took a job with the school board so we could get benefits whether I am consulting, contracting, or working salaried and we are guaranteed coverage for the rest of our life after she has been working ten years. I work with someone whose wife gave up her demanding job that she didn’t like to work in the school cafeteria for the same reasons.

Recruiters and consulting companies are baffled why I don’t accept an opportunity to be a high price consultant and I am sticking with this small company I work for when I could easily be making 25%-50% more. But living in a low cost of living area gives you that optionality.

Heck, there is a 50/50 chance I could get a job with Amazon working as an in house AWS consultant without moving (but with traveling). I’m just not interested in large companies. I worked at one at the time Fortune 10 (non tech) company for two years and I said never again.