几周前，我读了这篇帖子 在 Reddit 上：
HENRY -> NENRY：来自 FAANG 的警示故事
想象一下这个场景：
你已经当了 HENRY（High Earning Not Rich Yet，高收入但还未富有）大约两年了，生活很美好。你觉得自己很成功，受到尊重，并且有一大堆尚未归属的RSU（限制性股票单位）。再过几年，你可能会过上无忧无虑的生活！
然后你被解雇了。
你现在变成了 NENRY（Not Earning and Not Rich Yet，没有收入且尚未富有）。
你的生活方式逐渐提升（和/或你的伴侣不工作，和/或你有孩子）。你有储蓄，但突然觉得你的支出率很高。那6.5%的抵押贷款当时感觉还能负担，但现在……真是难以承受。
过去几年你一直在跟踪自己的净资产（可能太频繁了），为它的增长感到自豪。
现在它开始下降。每周、每个月，你的FIRE数字（财务独立退休早于传统退休年龄）离你越来越远。
那些在股票价格上涨之前授予的未归属RSU？消失得无影无踪。你可以删除你添加到主页的小部件，那个倒计时下一次归属日的小部件。
即使你能找到相同级别的另一份工作，这可能需要6-12个月的时间，你的总收入可能只有以前的一半（鉴于RSU价值的差异）。
故事的主旨：心怀感激，控制开支，不要过早得意。
A few weeks ago I read the following post on Reddit:
HENRY -> NENRY: A cautionary tale from FAANG-land
Imagine this scenario:
You’ve been HENRY (High Earning Not Rich Yet) for say two years and life is good. You feel successful and respected and have a fat stack of unvested RSUs. A few more years at this rate and you might be set for life!
Then you get laid off.
You are now Not Earning and Not Rich Yet (NENRY).
Your lifestyle crept up (and/or your partner isn’t working and/or you have kids). You have savings, but your burn rate suddenly feels quite high. That 6.5% mortgage felt manageable at the time, but now… woof.
You’ve been tracking your Net Worth the last few years (maybe too closely) and have been proud to see it grow.
Now it starts going down. Every week, every month, your FIRE number gets further and further away.
All those unvested RSUs you were granted before the stock price went up? Poof! Gone. You can delete the widget you added to your home screen then counts down the days until your next vest.
Even if you can find another job at the same level, which might take 6-12 months, your total comp might be half what you were making prior (given the difference in RSU value).
Moral of the story: Be grateful, keep your burn in check, and don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
生活来得很快。虽然这样的故事很少见，但它们说明了一些高收入职业尤其是科技行业的不确定性。有一天你还飞黄腾达，第二天你就试图收拾残局。
研究也支持这一点。国家经济研究局（NBER）发布的一篇工作论文研究了人们一生中的收入变化，发现“高收入者的正面冲击通常是短暂的，而负面冲击则是持久的；低收入者的情况则相反。”
换句话说，如果你已经在赚取高收入，赚更多通常是暂时的，而赚得少往往是永久的。如果公司遇到困境或经济陷入衰退，高薪员工可能会被视为潜在的成本削减目标。
似乎这就是上面帖子中的 Reddit 用户所发生的事。裁员来了，他们的高薪职位一夜之间消失了。尽管受教育程度较高的人（通常薪酬更高）的失业率通常低于其他人，数据表明，如果他们被解雇或决定离职，要替换同等收入更为困难。
根据皮尤研究中心的一项研究，“在过去几十年中，高收入者的工作流动性显著下降，仅有7.2%的顶层收入五分位数人群每年更换工作，相比之下，底层收入五分位数的人群中有13.3%。”尽管高收入者在被裁员后更有可能找到新工作，但这些新岗位的薪酬往往较低。
但问题不仅仅在于就业市场，还在于人们的消费。正如斯科特·加洛韦曾经说过的，“富有是被动收入高于你的支出。”对于上述 Reddit 用户来说，不幸的是，他们依靠的是 主动 收入，而不是被动收入。虽然获得足够的被动收入以覆盖支出可能需要一生的时间，但今天基于单一工作的奢侈生活方式是一个选择。
而且这个选择充满风险，即使最初看起来并不那么危险。我们保守估计，上述提到的 Reddit 用户在被裁员前在他们的FAANG工作中年收入为50万美元。税后他们能拿到27.5万美元（在加利福尼亚这样的地方），每年支出20万美元。因此，他们每年节省7.5万美元。
大多数人会认为“哇，他们做得很好。他们每年节省7.5万美元，这是一大笔钱。”这是事实，也是一个非常合乎逻辑的结论。但我看到这些数字时会想：“嗯，他们每年支出20万美元，而这完全依赖于单一的收入来源——他们的工作。”
但关键在于，即使他们的总薪酬是60万美元、70万美元或80万美元，我的看法依然如此。因为他们的支出太高，新的工作可能无法覆盖这一点。例如，假设我们的 Reddit 用户失去了每年50万美元的工作，但只能找到一份每年30万美元的工作。尽管这是一个降级，但仍然是一个惊人的收入。
不幸的是，在加利福尼亚这样的地方，30万美元税后只剩下18.6万美元。但他们的支出是每年20万美元！尽管找到了一个不错的替代工作，但他们仍然每年多支出了1.4万美元。
这就是高支出率与单一收入来源相结合的根本问题。这太冒险了。这也解释了为什么许多退役运动员最终破产，即使他们在职业生涯中的支出占收入的比例并不高。
例如，假设典型的运动员每年净收入200万美元（税后和经纪人费用后），但每年支出50万美元。这仅占他们税后收入的25%，相当保守，对吗？但如果他们的收入在5年内降至0而支出保持不变呢？即使他们在职业生涯中节省下来的钱每年赚5%，他们也只会在三十年内破产！
问题不在于他们的收入，而在于他们的支出。说实话，我不是告诉你减少开支的人。我真正相信收入是财富积累的基础。但在极端情况下，支出是摧毁财富的关键。
问题是，一旦习惯了一种生活方式，退一步就会很痛苦。这解释了范德比尔特家族为什么迅速挥霍掉他们的财富。在困难时期，他们无法放弃奢侈生活，导致了他们的衰落。
所以，如果你现在过得不错，找一种方式来多样化你的收入来源并控制好开支。如果你失去高薪工作，能 保守地 赚多少？如果你根据那一水平的收入设定当前的开支，那你应该不会有太大问题。
这听起来可能有点过头，但在这种情况下进行情景规划是为了避免像开头提到的 Reddit 用户那样的命运。当然，任何数量的情景规划都无法为你准备好所有情况，但控制好支出是你大概不会后悔的事情。
感谢你的阅读。
Life comes at you fast. While such stories are rare, they illustrate the fickleness of some high income occupations especially in the tech industry. One day you are flying high and the next day you are trying to pick up the pieces.
The research supports this as well. A working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) looked at earnings across peoples’ lifecycles and found that, “positive shocks to high-income individuals are quite transitory, whereas negative shocks are very persistent; the opposite is true for low income individuals.”
In other words, if you’re already making a high income, making more is usually temporary, while making less is usually permanent. If a company hits a rough patch or the economy goes into recession, highly-paid employees can be seen as a potential target for cost-cutting measures.
This seems to be what happened to the Redditor in the post above. Layoffs came and their highly paid position vanished out of thin air. Though more educated individuals (who tend to be more highly paid) usually experience a lower unemployment rate than everyone else, the data suggests that it’s also more difficult for them to replace their income if they are fired or decide to leave.
According to a Pew Research Center study, “job mobility has declined significantly among high-income earners over the past few decades, with only 7.2% of individuals in the top income quintile changing jobs annually, compared to 13.3% in the bottom quintile.” Though high income individuals may be more likely to find a new job if they get laid off, this new position is also more likely to be a step backward in terms of compensation.
But the job market isn’t the only problem here, peoples’ spending is. As Scott Galloway once said, “Rich is having passive income greater than your burn.” Unfortunately for the Redditor above, they lived based on their active income, not their passive income. While getting enough passive income to cover your spending can take a lifetime, living an expensive lifestyle today based solely off your job is a choice.
And that choice is fraught with risks, even though it may not seem that risky initially. Let’s be conservative and say that the Redditor mentioned above was making $500k a year at their FAANG job before they were laid off. After taxes they took home $275k (in a place like California) and spent $200k. Therefore, they were saving $75,000 a year.
Most people will look at this and say “Wow, they are doing well. They are saving $75k a year, which is a lot of money.” This is true and a very logical conclusion to come to. But, I see this and think, “Hmmm, they are spending $200k a year and that’s all being covered by a single stream of income—their job.”
But here’s the rub. Even if their total compensation was $600k or $700k or $800k, I would say the same thing. Because their spending is so high, a replacement job may not cover it. For example, imagine our Redditor loses their $500k a year job but can only replace it with one paying $300k a year. Despite being a downgrade, this is still an incredible income.
Unfortunately, after taxes, that $300k only brings home $186k in a place like California. But their spending is $200k a year! Though they found a decent replacement job, they are still spending $14k more per year than they bring in.
This is the fundamental problem with a high burn rate that is linked to a single income source. It’s simply too risky. This explains why many retired athletes eventually go broke even though their spending wasn’t a high percentage of their income while they played.
For example, let’s assume that the typical professional athlete makes $2M a year (after taxes and agent fees), but spends $500,000 per year. That
