Thremp you also have to remember you spend a considerable amount because of your caloric intake needs due to your fitness regime. This is a choice you have made. You could easily become less active (but not sedantary) and require less calories as well as protein and your food budget could be chopped in half.

You have pretty much just explained why your ability to "not get" lesser budgets exists.

This is your lifestyle, its what you want. Do you need it? F no, but you have the money so you choose to do it. If you didn't have the money, well, you'd find something else to do.

Yeah, but then I'd be one of you small and weak peons.

I would argue the exact opposite. The expensive nature and tastes of certain locations are less reflective of the true make up of the United States.

You must have been small and weak at some point in your life to feel that way. I won't argue your point though as its true, however degradingly it was made.

Well you conveniently cut out the rest of the post where I pared down the outing to just a single person going to a comedy club and having a few drinks. While I agree that dinning out is not a requirement I do believe that having a social life of some kind is. I don't think going to a comedy club or to a sports bar to watch a game is extravagant and just those activities in isolation are out of the reach in this hypothetical. We are talking about having beers with friends in a pub not bottles of champagne at clubs. I ran into an old friend I hadn't seen earlier this week and we decided to grab Quiznos and quickly catch up and that would have blown the budget.

I didn't mean to do that to argue a point, I did it to highlight something specific because context wasn't important - as well as prevent the duplication of your entire post in a quote.

I agree 100% We disagree on the dollar amounts that are typical though. Plus you've said in other threads you are a generous person and pay for nights out rather then split costs which our hypothetical would never do for the very reason it would bust the budget.

Some people overemphasize social dynamics, others under-emphasize them.

To people who derive a meaningful portion of self-worth from their dealings with others (your typical social butterflies), social interactions are a critical part of defining who they are and they absolutely cannot comprehend how someone could lead a happy, fulfilled life that doesn't somehow involve a bunch of 'people' and 'dinners' and 'gatherings' and 'outings', which, of course, have a monetary expense attached. To these people, anyone who isn't this way (ie- like them) is a "hermit" and living what they consider to be a sad life.

The other side of the coin; some people gain absolutely no satisfaction from "other people". They might be of a generally loner'ish or stand-off'y personality type, yes, but are nevertheless perfectly content to be a homebody. They might play lots of chess, read lots of books, indulge in endless, abstract info-soaking sessions on the internet; things that incur little to no expense. Warren Buffet once said that he'd be OK in prison presuming his celmate played bridge. I've known a lot of people like this- I myself am largely this way and I cannot conceive of a more hellish existence than what some people view as a totally normal, healthy 'social life', filled with lots of people, etc.

Your politician/performer types need an audience. Your gamer/planner/info-sponges only need things to keep their mind occupied. Neither will ever understand the other and they simultaneously view one another as being a somewhat pathetic; the former constantly seeking a needy, clingy type of validation from the company other people, the latter closeted and shut-in to a world that's only interesting to them.

The former has a profoundly higher cash burn rate than the latter, given the costs associated with entertaining, keeping up appearances, keeping up with Jonses, etc and could never live clear off 1mm. The latter doesn't care about any of that stuff and probably could.

What I do isn't the point. I haven't argued that comfortable includes bottle service, fine dining, premium alcohol, or paying for the whole group. If I was to do that it would be obvious trolling. I have even cut the number of drinks down to one an hour which is slower than most people drink and I've limited the tipping to 10% which again is pretty much the minimum.

I love how Thremp ignored this.

How'd this be for a budget?

$1000 a month on an apartment (including utilities, cable, internet)
$400 a month on food (that's $100 a week)
$400 a month on entertainment (again, $100 a week)
$400 a month for a car payment + insurance
$400 a month for miscellaneous

That's $2600 a month, or $31,200 (we could probably even change all the $400s to $500s, since that's only $36,000 a year). Again, I wouldn't like to live this way for the rest of my life. But it's far from a life of poverty, and I definitely wouldn't feel sorry for someone who lived this way.

P.S. I thought some might find this post/book interesting/relevant: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/..._up_for_p.html

Break down how the $100/week in entrainment gets spent.

That's pretty good, I'd add about $200/month for health insurance. Obviously it depends on the individual if it would be less or more than that.

All the other buckets are pretty flexible too. If one of those categories was especially important to someone, they should be able to get any of the other categories down to make up for it.

Yeah Watchmaker I too enjoy doing solitary stuff. Entertaining myself at home for an evening isn't a problem, watch a couple movies or some TV boxsets and troll forums, standard.

However I think we can agree that all but the most socially ******ed people would get sick of this if they had to do it all day every day. Not having a job would free up ridiculous amounts of time, and it would give you more energy (ie no come home and crash in front of the TV/computer because you're so tired from your 12 hour commute-work-commute routine). Reading a book is fine for an hour before bed each night but you have 16 waking hours to fill, seven days a week. Clearly no-one without an actual mental deficiency is going to be happy reading books and playing videogames for > 100 hours/week, but our budget doesn't leave us much room for manoeuvre

I know it's not a lot, so one obviously can't go out clubbing every night. I imagine most people don't want to though. I think the best approach would be to diversify your entertainment strategy. So maybe one day a week, you mainly read, play video games, watch TV, etc (stuff that's pretty cheap). Maybe another day you volunteer. Maybe another day you mainly work on a hobby. Anyway, to answer your question, I guess I would budget about $20 five ways. Notice I've already accounted for food, so this money is strictly for entertainment (in other words, if you go out and eat $20 worth and drink $20 worth of beer, only the beer falls in the entertainment category). That gives me about 5 outings every week where I can spend $20. Maybe some days I use this on seeing a movie. Other days I use this to pay for drinks at the sports bar, watching a game with my friend. Also, it's even more doable if you occasionally have people over to your place to watch the game. And if you really wanted to, you could probably live in a major US city (one that's not extremely expensive) and get rid of the car budget (since you could mainly walk, take a short bus ride, bum rides from friends when you are going out together).

What if instead of changing all the $400s to $500s, we just changed the entertainment budget to $800? Then does it seem a lot more doable to you?

I would also like to remind everyone that many recent college grads start off around $35K - $40K. Often times they're living in major cities, going out a decent amount, and spending money on frivolous things (not to mention, they also have more debt payments than our hypothetical person, student loans, credit cards, etc). I'm still a college student, so I'm living off about $20K a year. I can't wait until I get my first job and make like $40K, it will seem like so much money to me. Admittedly though, that will wear off after a couple years and I'll want to make more.

There is a whole 3 million people in the World of Warcraft sect that would probably be incredibly happy with a 16$ monthly entertainment budget. That being said, it may not be your thing But to say 100$ a week isn't a decent budget for entertainment is stretching it. Most Americans at the moment already cant afford a 5k a year after tax entertainment budget.

The best part about this is that the argument has devolved into 30k after tax, and Henry and Thremp still think it's too little. Then they look around at their neighbors and probably assume the median income is 200k+. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that void of the individuals with spoiled and expensive tastes who puke at the thought of not going to whole foods, by far a majority of people can support a single lifestyle with a 30k after tax income. There's already proof of this and I challenge you to ignore all the 50k pretax salaried individuals who are doing this at the very moment.

I think someone with a job can live on $30k. It is the lack of a job that causes the problem. I don't work. I haven't worked or gone to school for ten years so I have a good idea of how much time we are talking about. Having a job not only fills up a lot of time it also fulfills the need to socialize as you interact with co-workers. Being at home alone unless you are some extreme form of introvert is going to be unbearable but the second you leave the house you are burning money and at $10 a day you are not getting far.

dxu: Like twos full reiterated, though, you do have to keep in mind that the discussion has apparently become a theoretical wax on filling sixteen vacant hours per day using strictly the return generated off 1mm without drawing it down until you're old.

A more realistic scenario is having a clear 1mm, living off that, but occupying ones time doing as they pleased, even if that time included a job; full time, part time, lower impact work, higher impact work- whatever you want, really, as your financial 'base' is covered. At that point, your working wages become free and clear and can be used to provide for whatever you want. Now, you can take your surplus from your return off the 1mm and 100% of your working wages to enrich your standard of living as you see fit (even though in my case, that 'surplus' wouldn't mean much, save for maybe some additional travel)

I totally agree that not working increases your entertainment budget because of increased free time. Do you mind me asking what your monthly budget is Henry (not a break down, just the total amount you spend in one month)?

What about this break down?

$1000 for apartment related stuff
$1000 for entertainment
$500 for food
$500 for miscellaneous

I'm assuming the person lives in a city, so that they'll have more entertainment options and less need for a car (thus cutting out the car expenses).

Whatever cost benefit someone enjoys by living in a major city in terms of a broader array of entertainment options and having a lower need for a car is probably offset by the cost of everything else, though (assuming we're talking about living in an Alpha-type city and not Oklahoma City). Chicago's kinda 'special' in that the profoundly stratified income levels in the city affords for a pretty broad palate of entertainment options, but in places like NYC, Miami, LA, Seattle- decent 'entertainment' (restaurants in particular) can be pricey no matte rhow you shake it and your rent is going to be a lot higher, assuming you have normal human risk tolerances for getting mugged.

But in a way it is, just like my opinions are based on what I do. Our perceptions, experiences, desires, etc, play significantly into this debate. We all are saying one thing or another based on our current consumption rates. Thats why those of us who don't have a high burn rate say this would be quite doable but yet higher spenders like you and Thremp can't even begin to imagine it being possible however much you try to imagine not spending the money.

Its exceptionally easy to "upgrade" - its definitely not easy to "downgrade".

A lot of major cities are extremely expensive. I think NYC, Boston, San Fran, LA, etc, are out. But you could probably easily make it in Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, etc.

I don't think that would helpful.

I think $1000 could get someone where they need to be for entertainment. You'd still need to be careful but you could do it.

I think it would work for the other categories as well based on the Craigslist prices. Where I live though no. You'd need at least $1100-1200 for housing if you wanted phone, internet and cable. No idea on food except that it would be likely 30-40% more than the same diet in the US.

I know, I was just curious.

So do you think something like going to a comedy club or Monday Night football and consuming one drink an hour is excessive?

If yes what would a night out with friends be like?