hunterrrrrr

If I can take the profit on one and roll it into buying down the disposable income needed to afford a loan on another - which I can do in a falling interest rate environment - there should be not only a point of equilibrium for my relative purchasing power but also theoretically there will exist a point in which simply owning an appreciating asset would have been enough to have parity with whatever my overall purchasing power was, minus the asset. It’s the same function with the same saddle point.

Thanks for the thoughtful response I’ll try to respond soon

apologies if this comes off as a nitpick but when I read this

> I don't necessarily agree that the bar is lower because you're paid less

And then this

> I naively still want my bike to work properly

It reads like your conclusions are at odds with each other

Anyway I think we can wrap this one up just heading over to levels.fyi and comparing 2021/2022/2023 salaries for positions with 2024 salaries for the same positions.

> 1. You often can't get a mortgage on the same terms so you often can't find equality between selling a home and buying a home.

When interest rates fall the value of the asset goes up and the cost of borrowing the same amount of money has gone down

> If you sell the house, you’re short again

Unless we aren’t short again. 10% is the median year over year growth. What if it was 20%? Is that more realistic than her doubling her income in the same time period? I think that we could only be short if rent increases at the same rate that the property appreciated? Maybe I’m completely cooked / fried - it’s pretty late - and I’d be happy to be wrong - as my version of reality I’m seeing feels pretty destitute as it is

Right, I am making the joke of taking it literally

> but don't necessarily set that bar for yourself.

When someone is grotesquely underpaid the bar is pretty low. Take median salary for example. In some places merely buying a home and having it appreciate over the course of one singular year is enough to replace an entire median salary (in that same place)

> if you’re lucky

Can you help me understand how you derived being lucky from this equation? Kind of feels like we were maybe eagerly trying to arrive to a false “either this or that” outcome. Can you help me fix my understanding of your argument?

Sometimes you just have to stand on business.

> and I have never placed the security of a job above the value of home

Yeah I mean this tracks because we can look at data to prove that it’s true. The value of a single family home in California has increased 10%-11% year over year. Is your salary increasing 10-11% year over year? What’s the point of chasing income at your job once you own a single family home here? Lol. I had to explain to my wife today that it’s ok that she hasn’t replaced her 70k a year salary and that it’s ok for her to be in school right now. We could sell our house and pocket the difference and nothing was lost financially

Completely agree. And it’s just one more creepy weird thing that companies allow to be normalized. If you refuse to work in these conditions, you’re “burnt out” or you’re “a bad fit” or whatever other bizarre messaging folks want to astroturf on social media hangouts.

lol it’s funny how many of these class warfare topics popped up over the last 2 hr. Anyway, if anyone thinks burnout is real maybe take a look at Nvidia. Paying people more money is a pretty straightforward way to retain them. But that’s not the message that is being astroturfed on hacker news right now, the message is that if you refuse to work in certain conditions you’re burned out, or that your struggle is with management, or whatever. It’s really important for no one to ask themselves to explain why a 10% year over year increase on a median priced single family home in California is literally a form of passive income that exceeds the median salary. Did you get an $80k raise this year? Know anyone who did? Know any companies who are handing out these raises? DM me. I’m at FAANG right now not seeing any of it