Where do you live that $350,000/yr isn't enough to live on?

the first question: do I feel like debating wealth inequality to get my HN karma back up?

naaaaaaaaaaaah

anyway, in silicon valley (or san francisco in particular) you could not retire on that. you could coast, but you couldn't use it to buy a house (or apartment/condo), the moment you make a downpayment you absolutely have to keep working to make the monthly payments

350k after taxes and you couldn't retire? Do you mean in one year of work? You can live on 50k after taxes no problem even in SV. Also, why stay in SV if you're not working there? If you can maintain revenue for 5 years you can buy a house in cash no problem.

If you can maintain revenue, yes, get decent cash flow on a rental property, sure you can make it work

That says more about the foolishness of living in a boomtown during a boom than anything else.

We're talking about annual income 7x the Per capita income in the US and 10x of countries like Italy, Spain and Israel.

not everyone is living in the silicon valley.

I'm having a hard time understand the point of this comment. Are you saying this is not enough money to live?

theoretically? no, I would have said that verbatim then

the comment broke down the parent comment's earnings in a way this thread wasn't currently pointing out.

40% a bit too high for Canada.

Plus a 105k a year salary from day job. Its enough to live on for a 27 year old.

@cloudjacker - It's enough for me to live on, doesn't mean I'm not trying out a lot more things to earn even more

"This will never end 'cause I want more / More, give me more, give me more"

preaching to the choir, it was other people that thought my spot on observations were an insult to their aspirations

cool, can't get a palladium card with those aspirations

I would not have been satisfied with that when I was 27 and would have likely gotten an additional side contract, while writing calls in the options market, while buying powerball tickets