Whoa, that doesn't even pass the smell test, let alone any kind of deeper analysis.

Certainly this depends on where you're going to live, but if you're in a place where startups are common (even considering the current remote work situation), $200k/yr will either be a stretch for you to meet your living expenses, or will require that you live fairly modestly, especially if you have dependents. If you are able to put any of that into savings/investments, it will be a fairly small amount.

With $700k/yr, you can live quite comfortably, while putting quite a bit away for retirement.

And I don't think your (1) & (2) points really make sense here. Investments compound over time; starting off in your early 20s putting $50k in your investment/retirement accounts every year vs $10k will give you a very different outcome once you reach retirement age. Hell, you'll reach a very different outcome in your 40s. (But honestly, if you decided to live a $200k/yr lifestyle at $700k/yr, you'll be saving so much money that you could easily retire in your 30s.)

It will also mean getting to put a down payment on that house much earlier, and/or being able to afford more of a house. And in the meantime, it will mean being able to dine at fancier restaurants, take more luxurious vacations, buy more expensive toys, etc., if that's the sort of thing you value. And I wouldn't even consider all this to be lifestyle creep (as you genuinely wisely advise against downthread of a sibling comment); this kind of lifestyle would be perfectly sustainable at $700k/yr, but not at $200k/yr.

(But really, though, who the hell is making $700k/yr in their early 20s? Very few, very exceptional people, that's who.)

I will happily die on the hill that the marginal utility at $200k vs $700k is a pure function of your lifestyle, even in high cost-of-living areas (I live in one of the highest!). Your choice of adjectives "modestly", "fairly small", "quite comfortably", and "quite a bit" that are ways for smuggling lifestyle choices into the equation, which might apply to you but are by no means universal.

This boils down to "if you have more money, you can spend more money and maybe retire early". This is not a line of reasoning I'm trying to refute.

Dependents are an interesting wrinkle that is worth discussing separately. But let's stay on the straight and narrow, we can talk about in another comment if you wish.

> And I don't think your (1) & (2) points really make sense here. Investments compound over time

The reason I invoked these points was not to compare "could you save $50k at age 22 or $10k at age 22?", it was to compare "could you save $10k at age 22 or $50k at age 32?"

If you're beginning a high-income career later in life, the time-value of money is different because you have less time.

If you start early, you actually need to earn less to hit the same comparatively "fixed" long-term savings goals, because you have more time to compound.

Again, be careful to avoid falling back on "if you have more money, you'll have more money, which is obviously good".

> And I wouldn't even consider all this to be lifestyle creep

Regularly dining at fancy restaurants (anything in the Michelin orbit), taking luxurious vacations (I'd define as anything north of $300/day), and purchasing expensive toys (I don't think this needs any qualification...) is indeed the definition of lifestyle creep, and it's A-OK that they aren't sustainable at $200k/yr.

You can live extremely comfortably without these things. Whether you perceive them as acceptable or not is a you thing, not an objective thing. We actually do get to choose our values and our hobbies!

I would revisit that calculation assuming you are drained at 45 instead of 60, including taxes and the opportunity cost of 500K x a few years at 3% rate for the next 15 years.

That's pretty much exactly the calculation I'm positing. But actually with an even earlier terminus (late 30s or 40 at most).

Assume an "effective" average pay (i.e. "net" pay + retirement and other deductions, inflation-adjusted to today's dollars and averaged over the course of your career) of $120k/year.

From age 22 to 40, you've earned $2.16mm in inflation-adjusted-to-today dollars as a single earner. With a not-unreasonable average savings rate of 30%, not accounting for tax-advantaged growth or any growth at all, you'll come out with $650k of inflation-adjusted-to-today capital in savings.

Realistically, this should end up invested in some kind of equity (housing, stocks, bonds, whatever). If you finance the purchase of a house at 30, you're only 10 years into a traditional 30-year mortgage at this point, for reference. So you're roughly 1/3rd of your way to owning all the equity in your home. That's fairly comfortably a $1mm home (home equity being 30% of your assets at 40).

Of course, if you're DCA-ing into something that yields a modest average of 5%/year in inflation-adjusted returns, that $650k is closer to $1mm inflation-adjusted-to-today capital. And you still have 25 years at that point for your retirement savings to compound. And you can work part-time in something more fulfilling until retirement to supplement your income.

YMMV, but the marginal utility of money beyond $1mm in equity at 40 and $6k/month in expendable (on rental housing, food, travel, social events) income during your 20s and 30s is pretty small for most people. If you add a partner with any kind of income to the mix, it makes the marginal stress of earning more money even less appealing.

Edit: the main thing you ought to avoid like the plague is lifestyle creep. Spending money on things with zero or vanishingly-small happiness ROI. Read this story every year or two, or whenever you get a raise at work. https://www.marxists.org/archive/tolstoy/1886/how-much-land-...