The point was it does not matter if you only eat rice and beans for your whole life, no amount of salaries will get you into the "club".

The FIRE movement says otherwise.

My high tech salary, aggressive investment strategy and saving enabled me to not need to work again.

I'm obviously not in the top 0.01%, but you don't need to be.

I think the point is that it is his OPs opinion and they cannot read the future. Nobody here can, so the reply has just as much weight as the original.

So saving and living below means is a great strategy either way.

And all it cost was 15+ years of life?

I enjoyed every moment of it :).

I've traveled to 63 countries, I've had wonderful relationship with people across the globe, and love coding/building services.

I spent ~3 years living in Vietnam, having a more comfortable life than most Americans, while retaining US income levels.

My remote job enabled me to live with my parents longer, earning California-level pay in Florida, helping me save more money and have more time with them.

It doesn't cost life to eat modestly and live smaller than you can afford, you live life while doing this. Many think the best part of their life was when they were young and poor, its not a bad life to have low costs so you can live stress free.

Unless you think that the rich experiences of life are what make life worth living, that money grants you access to some of those richest experiences, and that you are more able to fully appreciate and incorporate those experiences into your personhood at a younger age.

I'd advise that person to change their attitude about that, because it's stupid and inhuman. Otherwise you get the absurd statement that average people in most countries, billions, a normal married guy in Vietnam, none of their lives are worth living.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Having less access to experiences of value is not remotely the same as having no value.

What’ll happen to the investments when the markets crash?

What do you invest in?

I've always been heavily invested in the technology industry and companies that seem popular on HN.

Currently my quantum computing investments have done quiet well. In the past, Google, Apple, and Cloudflare were big winners for me.

Although, over the long term, my performance with more volatility and less tax efficiency barely better than $SPY (mine: 16.28% vs spy: 15.71% annualized return). Schwab says benchmarks an "aggressive, but diversified" portfolio (more bonds and international) to have 12.57% annualized.

Similar portfolio here then; I’ve been a bit more defensive the past 1-3 years though, as “even to me” recent tech growth and valuations seem frothy…?