Buy Yourself a Latte - <AUTHOR> https://ritholtz.com/2019/04/buy-yourself-a-fking-latte/ <comment><USER3> If part of your audience consists of people living without much a safety net, that $5 a day adds up. Also, the author's point that saving that much isn't going to be $1 million, but "only" as much as $500,000 then that point rather falls flat. Sure, inflation may decrease the utility of that amount of money, but it will also increase the cost of that latte, so you'll be saving more than just the $5 over time. Finally, this piece ignores the entire mindset of the "avoid the latte" point, which is that it's intended as much literally as metaphorically: don't waste money on the little stuff. $5 for coffee, another $100/month subscribing to every video streaming service and gold-plated cable package, etc.

Obviously if you're already socking away 15% of your income into a retirement account, Have at least 6 months of salary in a savings safety fund, and generally live about 10% below your means, this advice probably doesn't apply to you: you have more than enough to spend on the little stuff. But congratulations, you're in a significant minority, and this advice is aimed at the rest of the working populace who aren't in that situation.

<comment><USER4> _that $5 a day adds up_

The article isn't advocating that you buy a coffee every single day. It's saying a. focus on larger issues and b. it's okay to do a little self care and a little self indulgence.

I sometimes bought myself a fucking coffee of some sort at Starbuck's back when I was homeless. I needed the caffeine to help treat health issues. It let me plug in for an hour and get some electricity for my tablet, plus spend an hour on the internet because I was wi-fi dependent. It helped me feel like a human being and not just go fucking kill myself.

I was working on my larger problems, like getting healthier, paying down debt and developing a better earned income. I eventually got off the street.

I still don't have a lot of money. I still have to make judicious purchasing decisions. I still sometimes find that the best answer is splurging on taking care of myself.

Sometimes, taking care of yourself in some way is the best investment you can make. Sometimes, that means buying an overpriced coffee.

<comment><USER5> There was an illustrative article on this topic a few years ago [1]:

"It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to."

(I really recommend reading the whole thing, for those that have never lived that situation long-term.)

There's additionally a more recent study on the cognitive effects of long-term poverty [2], which essentially finds that poverty skews prioritization in financial decision-making and produces long-term decision-making stress which amounts to a massive ongoing cognitive load.

Attitudes like ~ineedasername's are just fucking infuriating, especially when posted in response to an article in which the entire point was that saving money on coffee is not a habit which in isolation will make a huge difference in anyone's financial future.

It's only about one step removed from victim blaming. Impoverished people aren't poor because they occasionally buy coffee. They're poor because there's an economic system currently in place which is slurping as much wealth away from as many people as possible to feed it to just a few.

[1]: [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your- br...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on- poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/?single_page=true)

[2]: [http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral- science/2018/artic...](http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral- science/2018/article/how-poverty-changes-your-mind-set)

<comment><USER6> It's infuriating in the same way that "move more, eat less" is infuriating to obese people. It's infuriating because it doesn't pan out in practice for a lot of people trying. However, the advice is still sound to some degree, because it _does_ work for the people who are actually able to follow it.

Now, to blame it on the economic system is going too far IMO. Can you point to an economic system in practice with lower poverty rates than capitalism? Also, a well balanced capitalist system doesn't "slurp" wealth away, it increases it. Someone invents an axe, gets massively rich, and wealth inequality grows a bit. However, everyone who bought that axe is now better off for it. The total amount of wealth has increased in a non-zero-sum fashion.

<comment><USER7> Everyone who buys the axe is better off for it, and everyone who sells wood at the market but doesn't own an axe is worse off for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I grew up in a poor family, could never afford anything unless miracles happened, never went on any trips etc. I later scaled all the way up to much more than I needed as a software developer and lately I'm pretty much down to nothing.

The main thing I learned over 42 years of going back and forth is that a warm place to sleep, good health, good food (and coffee) and nice, caring people are priceless.

Money is the ultimate drug, yet piling it up and walking over dead bodies to get ever more is seen as successful and worthy of admiration. I know a junkie when I see one, the fact that the drug is legal changes nothing.

Dropping $5 you don't have on overpriced coffee is proving that it has no power over you.

Posting this here is likely karma suicide, but here we go; this is my perspective, and it's as valid as any other.

<comment><USER9> "Dropping $5 you don't have on overpriced coffee is proving that it has no power over you"

Surely it depends on motivation?

I wouldn't say money has power over me, but I want to be a responsible member of society, pay my own way etc, so I make sure I have money to buy coffee now and in the future. Whereas if you're buying overprice coffee with money you don't have, just to impress your mates, that think you're rich and successful, and you want to impress them...

Further, if you're spending $5 you don't have (assuming it isn't stolen), its borrowed, which means someone else has power over you.

<comment><USER8> Who said anything about impressing anyone? Why do you feel the need to attack me and put words in my mouth?

If I couldn't care less, how can someone have power over me?

<comment><USER10> I believe the parent comment to your post was speaking in generalities ( see the 'if' )- not misquoting you at all.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that was my intent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Counterpoint:

The debate is framed as "$5 a day is a waste--put it into your piggy bank every day and drink office sludge instead".

I instead say that yes, the office coffee still tastes like fertilizer, but I still think $5 a day for a latte is waste because I can make some _excellent_ coffee at my desk for about a dollar a day using an inexpensive French Press, a hand-grinder (or grinding the beans that morning at home), and some whole beans from your favorite hipster coffee shop. And the 5 minutes it takes start-to-finish (1 minute for prep, 4 minutes for steeping) is probably less time than it will take to slip by the coffee shop, stand in line, and get your order.

But that's just me. If they're one of those people who uses the coffee/espresso/latte as a caffeine-delivery mechanism and rely on being a frozen whipped-cream confection with chocolate and a little coffee in it to make it palatable, then my self-brew method won't help them.

<comment><USER12> You're exchanging time for money. It's a highly common tradeoff. Prep, brewing, and cleanup amounts can work up to around $3-4 of opportunity cost for a tech professional. Not to mention, french press coffee is not quite equivalent to a latte.

Also, I recommend 5 minutes steeping, personally. ;)

<comment><USER3> Not sure how much time you save. Standing on line and waiting for that latte would take a comparable amount of time to what it takes me to make my own cup at work.

<comment><USER12> Getting one during the work hours does seem a bit odd to me. Before work or over lunch, however, seems much more reasonable.

<comment><USER13> Ok, but even then, surely it takes about as much time?

The time component of having to go somewhere + get your order + get back is mysteriously ignored all. the. time. Not just with coffee, but with making your own food. Like, you don't want to meal prep it takes too much time--but then you probably spend _more_ time overall getting lunch every day instead! _Especially_ if you have the luxury 'need' for variety every. single. meal.

It drives me a little bit crazy.

<comment><USER12> > Ok, but even then, surely it takes about as much time?

Sure, but it's on your own time, not your employer's time (at least, that's how I read "I have it at my desk").

That said, I will solidly defend the notion that _not_ spending a solid N hours at your desk is a good thing. Stepping away from your desk on your lunch hour, whether it's to purchase a latte, a lunch, or to eat a homemade meal in a nearby park, is a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To give this conversation a more concrete example, here is (linked below) a calculation of saving $5 a day over 40 years, in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, assuming returns on invested assets are 7% per year. This is a realistic number based on >100 years of U.S. real (inflation adjusted) stock performance. You end up with $377k after 40 years.

In my opinion, a lot of Americans and people around the first world live paycheck-to-paycheck because they adjust their consumption to match their income. There are people that live paycheck-to-paycheck at all levels of the income distribution. The power of saving adds up more than people think. The author of the article may very well be rich and successful because his $5 daily coffee frees up his mental bandwidth enough to concentrate on his billion-dollar daily problems. However, many poorer folks need to learn self- control and the power of saving. His advice is not actionable.

To use the featured quote against him: >If spending $5 a day on fancy coffee puts your retirement at risk, you've got bigger problems.

Yes. The bigger problem is that many grown adults are financially ignorant. Spending $5/day on a pure luxury despite being flat broke is a symptom of this ignorance, but analysis of this symptom can lead to self-reflection and better behavior.

Savings Calculation: [https://imgur.com/a/Au00aeJ](https://imgur.com/a/Au00aeJ)

<comment><USER15> 7% real return is a relatively high assumption. In the article Ritholtz assumes 8% nominal returns and 2-3% inflation, so 5-6% real returns. Even assuming 5% real returns is somewhat optimistic. Developed countries in the last 100 years or so have achieved that, but most places in most time periods have not.

<comment><USER14> It is true that the U.S. over the last ~150 years has outperformed a lot of the world, but it maintained 7% real over that period of time. Ritholtz was all over the damn place in his article, and attacks the strawman of 12% growth. In comparison 7% has some backing.

Due to volatility, it is unsafe to retire on a planned drawdown rate of 7% (4% is a good rule), but it isn't unrealistic to expect 7% growth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sure. How about saving up that $5 coffee until you die. Then you can enjoy your millions in your grave-yard. I'm close to turning 30 and one thing I learned: There are certain experiences you only enjoy when you are at a particular age.

You can't go hiking when you are 75. You'll probably be sitting on a chair. You can't also go drinking and dancing in some cities around the world and coming back to your hotel room with a date. That can't happen at 75 unless you are paying for it. I also don't think you'll enjoy it as if you were 22.

The truth is: You should save/spend and optimize for your perceived livelihood. Unless you have an agenda of passing your wealth to your children. I'd rather cease my existence at 75 or 80 than struggle with illness and pass my wealth to pharmaceuticals and doctors.

But back to the issue. $5 coffee? Yes but only because I can sit at Starbucks for 2/3 hours. They give you electricity, WIFI and some starbucks do have rather, very nice, views. Buying a take-away starbucks everyday because you are too lazy to make coffee is stupid, however. (or rich enough)

<comment><USER17> I'm a full-time freelancer, and I spend quite a lot on traveling now that I can work from anywhere. It certainly costs a lot of money, but for the past 8 years I've been doing this, I never felt it as a waste of money.

Those $5 coffees not only have helped me relax, recharge my gadgets and use their wifi, but also to get my work done. Not working at all vs paying for a coffee to earn some money is an easy decision to make.

On hindsight, though, money I've spent on cloths and jewelery, or super fine wine and alcohol, or high end restaurants feel like a massive waste of money.

<comment><USER16> > On hindsight, though, money I've spent on cloths and jewelery, or super fine > wine and alcohol, or high end restaurants feel like a massive waste of > money.

You can get designer brand clothes from department stores like TGMaxx pretty cheap. And if you look around enough you can find new stuff that fits you very well. Super fine wine and alcohol is pretty much the same as cheap wine and alcohol. High end restaurants are a connection mechanism for rich people. So unless you are networking there, there is no reason to go to one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article seems a bit all over the place WRT inflation.

If you're inflation adjusting, then you're not socking $100 a month away, because towards the end of that 40 years coffee will cost way more than that.

As others have said though, it's not really about the $5 coffee. It's about whether you save or not.

If you have $50K a year after expenses, then yeah, a $5 coffee probably is irrelevant.

If you have $5K or $10K, then a significant percentage of your discretionary expenditure has gone on a hot liquid.

Ultimately though this just comes down to saving enough, which I think is intuitively obvious to anyone who sits down and thinks about it without invoking some sort of "magic beans" lens.

If you have a 40 year working life, and 20 years in retirement, saving 33% of your income and investing it in something that tracks inflation should be enough for you to maintain your average standard of living.

I don't think that 33% is a hard bar to hit for most people that aren't on minimum wage. I also don't think most people actually consider it that way, they think of pensions or other schemes as wizardry that will return them vastly in excess of inflation.

<comment><USER19> $5 coffee for 300 days is $1500/y, which, IMO, is not insignificant even compared to $50K

<comment><USER20> Personally I think if you have $50k/y discretionary spending it's not unreasonable to spend $10k-20k of that on things you enjoy. Personally I save more, because most of the things I enjoy are free and I want to take advantage of compound interest while I'm young, but that's a personal choice.

But if there are things aside from investments that you do want to spend your money on while you have such a significant (compared to the rest of the world) amount of disposable income, why deprive yourself just so you can retire with 25% more money? Your life would not be much different retiring with $2mm vs. $2.5mm, or really any two numbers over $1mm or so.

<comment><USER19> How about retiring 25% earlier?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think the "don't buy the daily latte" advice maybe is not meant to be taken literally but is instead meant as a way to demonstrate the affect of compound interest and encourage people to start saving. We have the realize the audience is usually people who have no idea whatsoever about saving or investing. We're trying to encourage them to get in the mindset; if they cut back the latte, what else can they cut back on?

The article is a bit rant-y for my taste, but I do agree people need to consider more the big expenses: if you live in New York/San Francisco, saving just $200 on rent seems pretty negligible when rent is like 1.5k-3.5k, but it's way more of an important decision than a half price toothpaste or something. I have a friend I went on vacation with recently. She has an amazing apartment which she barely ever lives in due to being a consultant, yet she was worried about saving a few bucks on her flight. Our brains tend to focus on relative rather than absolute values.

<comment><USER22> Yes - its really meant as a symbol for recurring monthly subscriptions such as full Comcast triple play at $200 + $10 for Netflix + $10 for Hulu + $10 for Disney+ + $10 for Amazon Prime + $20 for Apple News/TV+ + $10 for NYTimes + $15 for Costco as well as luxury car payments instead of a basic car payment, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> With many people saving approximately nothing for retirement and hitting 65 with roughly $0 to show for it, even his modified example of having $300-400k after 40 years is... a pretty damn good argument for saving $100/month.

Whether that $100 comes from lattes or apps/micro-purchases or junk food or brand labels or holding on to your car 2 more years before you replace it or cutting the cord on cable TV or more frugal vacations -- is all up to the individual.

Sorry but if you've _literally_ got a billion dollars, you might be able to advise on growing your money, but you are (almost certainly) not able to advise on frugality. It's almost as if the argument is that if you spend $5 on lattes, you'll mysteriously be a much richer person who no longer has problems saving for retirement. That must be one damn good latte.

<comment><USER24> Does the US not have a compulsory savings scheme? In Australia, we have superannuation which employers must pay and it goes into a fund that is invested. My scheme gives me approximately 17% and after around 12 years of my working life, I have a couple hundred thousand dollars in my account. By the time I retire, it's likely to be worth around 1.5 million in today's dollars. I also invest some of my own money.

<comment><USER23> We do. It's called social security. Technically, it should be enough to pay the bare minimum of your needs upon retirement, if you're in a low cost-of- living area. It does not ensure a comfortable retirement, and we have enough problems in our government to erode our trust in getting the full payout from the system.

It's also "100%" paid out if you wait until 67, or 75% at 62. Also, I note you said "employers must pay"; we pay social security as a deduction from our paychecks in the form of a 6.2% tax. Employers also match that.

<comment><USER24> I just researched social security, it appears more like a pension plan. Our superannuation is entirely our money. When I reach retirement age then every cent I've paid (plus interest) is returned to me. If I run out of money I'm still eligible for the pension. I'm not entirely sure but I think my superannuation is more similar to a compulsory 401k.

<comment><USER25> The US is, as a rule, for better or worse, pretty opposed to"compulsory" in most situations

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Great article. I never understand why "financial advisors", when making pitches for consumer frugality, invent a wildly optimistic interest rate (12%?!) and say things like "you could have had $X million dollars, IF ONLY. Well, sure... you could have. Or you could have had no dollars, and also no coffee, since return rates from the type of investments that have any chance of making 12% are anything but guaranteed.

<comment><USER27> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index#Annual_returns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index#Annual_returns)

> Total Annual Return Including Dividends

10.53%

> 25 Year Annualized Return

11.93%

<comment><USER28> Sure, that's nice. (Although it seems to have been heading somewhat lower for the past decade.) But if you'd started investing in 1998, say, and then in 2008 something happened such that you unexpectedly needed access to your 10 years' worth of accumulated resources, things wouldn't have looked so rosy.

Overall, the long-term trend may be pretty reliably positive. But that's little comfort to an individual who may not have the luxury of waiting out a poorly-timed, lengthy downturn.

<comment><USER29> Right, and most of the gains will be in the last year because exponents - <USER2> if you have to pull out early those gains are ded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think this article misses the point. The daily coffee isn't the only problem with people's spending, but is representative of all the small daily spends that add up without people realising.

It's the petrol in your car when you could've walked, it's the extra bar of chocolate that you add to your lunch, it's the daily newspaper you buy. Everything adds up very quickly and the coffee is just one example

<comment><USER31> That's the authors point. Unless you are an extreme outlier and buying a LOT of small purchase (like to the point you don't have time to work), they really are meaningless. The big fixed items in your budget really drive everything, housing, medical, education, which have all far outstripped inflation. And the income has remained flat for most people (save tech workers who get great coffee for free).

<comment> GuB-42 Sure, the big fixed items drive everything, but they are the baseline.

Saving on housing is hard, and saving on medical and education is more or less impossible. If you have, say, a $3000/month income, resulting in a $2000/month budget and you need $1000/month expense just to survive, that's $1000/month expendable. A $5/day latte ends up as 15% of that budget, that it is 5% of your income is irrelevant because you don't have access to these $2000.

7 of these "small" expenses and you are left with nothing. No extra money for a nice car, a more comfortable home, holiday trips, etc...

<comment><USER32> Not sure savings on those fixed costs are as impossible as you make them out to be, rather they may take substantially more effort than the "skip a coffee" line.

Housing -- do more with less. How many people buy houses (or cars) beyond their means or bigger in size than needed?

Health -- daily movement is a life long commitment (as is finding time for sleep) and has outsized long term health benefits. No this doesn't address the "hit by a bus" scenario, but in terms of some of the most prevalent chronic health conditions it's amazing ROI.

Education -- while there is an undeniable tyranny of geographical circumstances, being able to evaluate using community colleges for prereqs, considering alternatives like trade schools, and taking into account expected lifetime earnings for career path all can play into this fixed expense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> My argument would be that you might as well enjoy the money that you earned. You can't take it with you when you die, so make the most of it here.

Not saying you shouldn't save money, but if the 5$ cup makes you happy, just go for it.

Edit: typos!

<comment><USER34> The same arguement is valid for time that could have been spent more productively. Time that you have enjoyed wasting is not really wasted time. In fact a bit of fun or idle time can have a significant mental health benefit.

Of course, you need to find a balance. You have to have enough good productive time to be able to afford the idle time that you need/want...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> We started budgeting, finally, around the time we had kids. We got tired of doing it all based on feeling, and wanted to actually know where our money was going, so we could make more accurate plans. A lot of people look at budgeting as a chore, but I've found it to be liberating. When you sock away some money for "personal spending", you can get a coffee and not think twice about it. You're not wondering whether your rent or mortgage is funded. You can start funding future costs (like an annual car registration renewal) instead of being surprised by them. And if it seems like a ton of effort, it's pretty nice when tax season comes around and all your expenses are already categorized.

At the end of the day you have X expenses and Y income, with some unknowns and variations thrown in the mix. There's no reason it has to be a mystery. You can actually make an informed choice about that latte, and balance it with your desire to save for the future, live a little now, etc.

</comment><comment><USER36> So far people in the thread seem to be focusing on whether the use of inflation is appropriate and whether coffee is specific or merely representative or whether small costs add up.

But they've all missed what I think is the true takeaway:

> _Please excuse my lack of enthusiasm for discussing 4-dollar lattes while we > ignore 30-plus years of zero real wage gains._

<comment><USER18> As an individual, this is almost a philosophical statement, though.

I can actually choose not to spend $5 (just as I can attempt to enter a certain career path).

I can't change the median wage significantly.

It's not actionable.

<comment><USER37> You can't change wages directly on your own, no. But the systems that set the wages are not immune to public opinion. (Whether you consider wages to be set by companies, government, or other forces, this holds true.)

<comment><USER18> Sure, and if I had secured a high income or had established wealth, such a topic might be worth my time.

As an individual, actually saving that money or driving a higher income for myself is a far more effective use of time.

It also has the side-effect of increasing the median wage, because my negotiation provides upward pressure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just to get my 5 cents in (as an ex-barista), you can get the best (single origin) coffee's in the world for between 8-12 euro's for 250 grams.(there are more expensive Geisha coffee's, but that's really hi-end) Lets assume you use 18 grams of coffee for a cup. That yields you at least 13 cups of coffee (from the 250 grams. Raw resources would cost you between 0.62 to 0.92 euro a cup.

Manual ceramic grinder between 30 - 45 euro's Aeropress about 35 euro.

Both of them last at least 5 years.

That is quite a bit less than the 5 dollars. Yes it takes you about 5 min to brew a cup. But from having worked in a espresso bar for many years, during morning rush hour, you would be happy to get your coffee in less than that.

I think the article is interesting, because it deals with culture. First is the, go buy a cup of coffee at starbucks culture, and pay premium for the coffee. What I've noticed from working it's that people have their rituals when it comes to coffee. It's about getting fuel to get to work. It's about taking a break from the environment they were in 5 min before. It's about comfort.

That is what you get for the 5 dollars in the article. It's not only about the coffee, it's about taking a break, rewarding yourself.

If you can find a way to get the above pleasures from home-brewed coffee, or stop drinking take-out coffee. Great! But I agree that only seeing it "5 dollars not used for your retirement" is really short-sighted. There is a deeper problem if that is the difference between you able to retire when you're 65.

<comment><USER39> I agree entirely. I've changed my routine to avoid coffee shops in the morning, and make coffee at home with nice beans. I've come to enjoy the quiet process each morning, reading news while waiting for the water to boil, and it has definitely been saving me a significant amount of money each month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> > "Let's say you spend around $100 on coffee each month. If you were to put > that $100 into a Roth IRA instead, after 40 years the money would have grown > to around $1 million with a 12 percent rate of return."

...why not both? :-)

But seriously, coffee is a drop in the bucket. Most of us spend 30% of our income on housing alone. And you have to eat. And coffee makes us happy and productive. The cost of not having that coffee - being unproductive and unhappy - is much greater.

And of course, what's the end goal? Have the most money at the end of your life? What do you win for that? Nothing. Your goal should be to spend all of your money living the best life you can, with enough money to retire on and enjoy the lifestyle you want (with a rainy day fund, of course). Teach your children what they need to know to succeed, so none will need to depend on any inheritance, and leave them whatever property or money is leftover.

<comment><USER23> Both should be "coffee" and "saving" \- not __$5 __coffee and _maybe_ saving. In other words, if you figure out how much you need to retire at the lifestyle you want, in the time frame you want, and put the money into your investments (retirement, brokerage, etc) and then pay all your bills and then you have $5/day to spend on coffee, go to town. If, instead, you spend $5/day on coffee, pay your bills, and don't have any money left over each month, so you skimp on your retirement contributions, you've lost control of when and how you retire.

The end goal for any conscious saver is not "the most money at the end of your life" but almost certainly something more meaningful and useful. Retirement when and how you want! Having retirement accumulate faster such that you have enough to retire when you're 55 instead of 65 means 10 years of meaningful autonomy over your life. Of course that probably isn't possible if $5 coffees interrupt your retirement plans entirely. There's a spectrum of incomes, cost of living and what your optional spending looks like.

<comment><USER29> Right, but if all you are saving is $5 a few times a week you aren't really saving... and that's the point the article is making.

<comment><USER23> The math seemed pretty compelling. Even $100/month invested in index funds returns several hundred thousand after a few decades (or the typical working career.)

Should you ONLY skip daily lattes but living beyond your means otherwise? Of course not! But it's just one of many places to start making changes in your life towards the things that really matter to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you're entrepreneurial, I fully believe it's a better use of your time and mental energy to make an additional $5k/yr than to scrimp to save an extra $5k/yr. For the HN crowd, this could mean building a side project that generates income, negotiating a higher salary, etc.

That being said, the type of people who have the luxury to focus on those types of things are in the minority. For those who aren't entrepreneurial, don't work in tech, etc. sticking to a strict budget can be the difference between having money for retirement and not having it.

<comment><USER42> I call this the "sales mindset" vs the "accounting mindset". In my opinion, once you see the accounting mindset take hold of the leadership of a company, it's prospects are dead. It's not growing any more. Granted, a company can make a ton of money during its slow decline.

There are, of course, industries that are different (Walmart seems to make way more via cost savings than by sales incentives, for example).

<comment><USER43> Walmart shows how the accounting mindset can work for a company: the more you drive down costs, the more markets you can make a profit in. They cut costs for the sake of being able to expand into places that they otherwise wouldn't be able to, rather than to boost profit from stagnant sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think the author misses a point here. The issue isn't that 5$ cup of coffee alone but rather a mindset of all these little purchases which can add up to say $50 a day which is both real money and don't actually bring joy/value to your life. If the coffee actually makes you happy go for it. But if it's just inertia/laziness then it is money flushed down a drain which yes adds up over the long term.

<comment><USER45> Who in the world buys ten fancy coffees or equivalent every day?

<comment><USER3> Plenty of people by 2, or 3. Then think of streaming services and other subscription services, gold-plated cable TV packages, etc. That meal box kit that costs you $240/month. It's pretty easy to get non-essential luxury spending up in to a few hundreds of dollars a month. Not to say you ditch it all, but judicious pruning of it down to the essentials/most used/biggest time savers etc isn't impractical. Obviously if you're already socking away savings and retirement, living 10% below your means etc., this may not apply. In my case though, the spouse & I have do the math in war-gaming things like one of us losing their job, having to take a pay cut, etc., and we could cut $1000/month in "extra" expenses with a bit of pain, and twice that if we really had to. Once you start looking for these small non-essential purchases it's not hard to find them, and triage what's more/less necessary.

<comment><USER45> None of those things get you even close to $50/day. The "meal box kit"s are hundreds of dollars a month, yeah, but they also come with hundreds of dollars worth of food. Blue Apron comes out to about $10 per meal and they're considered the expensive choice.

TV packages get you up to $60 per month, or $2 per day. Wow, so wasteful, almost the price of a one-way commute and all you get in return is broad and unlimited 24/7 entertainment.

So we're up to $20 per day: $8 for food delivered to your house (which shouldn't even count because you need to eat anyway), $10 for two nice coffees, and $2 for television. Tell me about all the other outrageous luxury spending that gets us up to $50 per day.

$50/day is $1500/month. _nobody_ spends that much on little luxuries. 46% of Americans can't afford to spend that much on _rent_.

<comment><USER44> I don't think you live in NYC hannasarion. A cab here and there instead of the subway etc...

Also, the numbers jump by multiples if you have kids and include them in the little luxury buys. Again, my point isn't to deprive yourself unnecessarily of joy. It's just to be conscious of purchases which do add up and yet don't actually make you much happier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> A lot of comments here are debating whether a 12% interest rate is reasonable or not - I don't know enough to comment on that since stocks and investing is one of those things I try to know as little about as possible.

What I'm interested in is where the promoters of "save for 40 years" are getting a guarantee that they'll be alive in 40 years, and in good enough health to do the things they planned to do when they started investing. Especially if you live in a third-world country like the US, where mass shootings happen nearly every week, and regular medical expenses can bankrupt even the most thrifty saver, I think there's something to be said for enjoying life right now. I'm very thankful for the trips I've spent money on instead of saving it, because exposure to different cultures changed me as a person, and now I have the rest of my life to live differently with new ideas and values.

If you like coffee, $4 or $5 can get you literally the best coffee beans in the world, prepared by a master barista. It's not like wine or whiskey where you need to spend hundreds of dollars to get a taste of the high-end stuff. I still make my coffee at home 6 days a week because it's cheap and I like the process, but getting an espresso once a week is one of those little joys that make life worth living for me.

<comment><USER47> It's very simple. Despite the weekly mass shootings in your neighborhood, the life expectancy of an American is still 79 years. And if you're commenting on Hacker News, chances are that yours will be higher. And the majority of American don't get bankrupt on medical expenses.

Unless you're willing to live in poverty, or be a burden on your children, saving enough for your old age is your only option.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't splurge on the fantastic lattes of your master barista.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I like Barry (and love his podcast), but #4 is crap. The number of people who are high income earners (say the equivalent of $150,000+ in Houston) who waste enormous amounts of money on eating out is staggering.

Go ahead - add up all your costs for eating out - I'll bet you that latte that it's more than you think...probably a lot more.

Discipline over little expenses is tough, but crucial. The financial advising industry even has an ugly name for these people - "credit card millionaires". They look rich, but really spend too much on all sorts of things, from lunches, to lattes to cable tv, and end up blowing most of their income.

#SmallDiscretionaryExpensesMATTER !

</comment><comment><USER49> When I met with a financial planner, he stressed the importance of setting aside enough money to spend on myself every month that I would feel confident to start investing.

The latte scare is a great way to make sure people who are apprehensive about investing never even consider it. Starting incrementally is way better than criticizing people for just trying to live their lives.

<comment><USER50> > The latte scare is a great way to make sure people who are apprehensive > about investing never even consider it.

It's like fad dieting, but for your wallet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> So... my personal experience is that many people who make less than median household income do buy $5 lattes or similar drinks/beverages multiple times a week.

While I do not believe that this is a big retirement issue, I do think many of the people I've been acquainted with who have habits in this ballpark would be quite well-served by getting the $1-dollar-any-size regular coffees at McDonald's instead, which would amount to increased savings of about ~$1500/year.

Why? I think this is, for many, more an issue of having a solid emergency fund or paying down moderate credit card debt, than making or breaking retirement savings (which would, in any case, generally come _after_ debt/emergency funds). (Though it's still probably not make or break for most people.)

The above said, which I'm kind of meh about, what I find really jaw dropping is estimating the amount that many people in all income groups spend on alcohol. I don't know how people have the money.

</comment><comment><USER52> as an immigrant who came to the US with nothing and having held high paying software jobs for the past 20 years, I still find it unacceptable to drop $5 on lattes.

the reason has little to do with whether one can afford the $5 latte or not.

the $5 latte/day or multiple lattes as most of my Starbucks card toting colleagues go for even when we have gourmet free coffee in the office is a symptom of something else.

usually, it is a classic symptom of consumerism - and not having one's overall finances in order. of not having a plan in place to save first and spend later.

when one drops $5/day on a latte when a 50c coffee at would do, one drops similar amounts on most everything else - an expensive shampoo instead of a basic one, branded shoes and clothes, ... and so on

at least that is where I find myself today - my habits have changed over the past two decades - from being able to find happiness in simplicity to getting addicted to consumerism.

</comment><comment><USER53> To me the article is somewhat missing the most interesting point of the whole discussion and that's the impact that the money is having when it is spend. Let me be a little provocative :)

While a great coffee can be a pleasurable experience that can actually make you more productive and happy in the short-run with possible positive long- term flow-trough effects (e.g., on life satisfaction), there are likely going to be more impactful uses of that money. As the most obvious examples, for instance, saving childrens lifes in Africa [givewell.org], improving the messy factory farming situation [gfi.org], etc. So wouldn't you have the moral imperative to spend that money in a way that it's impact is higher or at least comparable than those possible alternatives?

I would argue that in many cases this is actually possible when you are buying a coffee but not regularly, though... then you could likely find more effective alternatives, thus, the habbit would be obviously harder to justify for the vast majority of people.

My major quip with all of this is that our institutions could be designed in a way that would help us to make smart decisions (for us and others) but at the moment it is computationally really expensive to find a good path that balances all interests in way that leads to a great life for all.

</comment><comment><USER54> I wonder if the author would be ok if people spend $1 on a coffee a day from McDonalds or a gas station and save the other $4?

I always hate how people always jump to "but inflation..." or "12% is not realistic...". Ok, maybe 12% isn't reasonable and $1M won't be as much decades from now. But having $500k or $750k or however much you end up saving by saving a few bucks each day could still be a pretty good chunk of change when you are ready to retire! That's much more than $0! The earlier you start, let's say when you're 18 buying a $5 cup of coffee and not really thinking about retirement, gives you more time to build wealth when you're ready to retire.

As more people start to reach retirement age, there's going to be a lot of people surprised to realize they can't afford to retire. With few companies offering pensions and some uncertainty about social security with Baby Boomers reaching retirement age, millennials better start thinking about how they can retire as soon as possible. Saving a few bucks each day (whether it is by giving up fancy coffee or something else) can be a great way to get started!

<comment><USER55> >millennials better start thinking about how they can retire as soon as possible

Most millennials have been blackpilled to the point of just accepting that the way things are currently going means we'll never be able to afford to retire.

<comment><USER54> yep, I agree with that. Which is why Im not crazy about people (like this author) who is discouraging millennials from even getting started. If you're in college, or just out of college, you have decades to figure out how to be able to retire. There's no need to just accept whatever happens, or to just assume people will figure out how to fund Social Security between now and then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I love fancy coffee, lattes especially. When I was younger, an explicit goal of mine was to become financially secure enough that I could afford a latte a day without sweating it. I used it as a yardstick for success and also knew that it would make me happy.

And, you know what? I was right. I have a good job and drink a latte a day now. It brings me immense pleasure every single time. Even after years of doing it, my daily latte remains a source of joy. I will probably do it the rest of my life, circumstances willing.

None of this is the point though! The point is that economic growth has stagnated while fixed costs have risen. Quibbling over this is ridiculous. The author is absolutely right. In the big picture, $5/day is not what should matter. If income equality was not so absurd and fixed costs not so out of control, everyone would be able to afford it.

Until those systemic injustices are resolved, we are just fighting over crumbs here. It's time for major tax reform. Or revolution. That's what we should be focusing on, not critisizing people for taking care of themselves in our nightmare of a society.

</comment><comment><USER57> When I was younger I walked to work in the big city and there was a great coffee shop on the way and every single day I bought a $4 extra large soy chai latte. It was fantastic and an exclusive secret recipe to that non-chain shop. Back then a normal coffee cost $1, so this was a splurge. Inflation adjusted that would be $6-7 these days. I regret nothing, though I did feel uncomfortable sometimes spending so much.

My next job there was no comparable coffee shop and I was driving to work. So I reconstructed by experimenting with spices until I exactly duplicated the original. Then I made the base in batches and would have some all week long, a week's worth was $3 in fairly pricey spices in bulk and $3 in soy, so $1.20 a day.

I later dropped soy from my diet and got more interested in espresso, cappuccino and cafe au lait with various non-dairy non-soy whiteners. By this time I had a $30 espresso machine and a grinder. I've replaced both a couple times. Sometimes I try a commercial coffee, but my own is better. And I'm OK with one big coffee a day, more than that I get too wired and can't think as well. Cost now is around 50 cents a day including everything such as prorated equipment costs.

$5 lattes from a store every day is fine if you can afford it. But it does add up. And some folks that buy such things also treat themselves to lots of other things that they don't prepare themselves, whether avocado toast, movies, cable TV, delivered water, on demand fashion, always having the very latest iPhone, car leasing, or whatever.

Being aware of these costs and keeping track of them can help. If one is not investing well for retirement then they should start looking at all these little expenses, not just the big expenses.

I'm very well off now and can afford to buy all the $5 lattes I want but I don't buy any lattes at all these days. When I was poor I bought a lot of them. There's not really a connection between the two but there could be for some.

<comment><USER47> You can't just write this and then not post a link to the secret recipe!

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> If you're going to add inflation, add inflation to _all_ your numbers. i.e: the cup of coffee will be subject to inflation, and what you save will also increase with inflation. If you run the numbers propagating inflation everywhere instead of cherry-picking, over 40 years you get:

total coffee cost: 84k

total investment: 220k

assumes 5% investment return, 2.5% inflation, and 20 coffees/month

spreadsheet here: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_-5SuX3mn_3GBQEOMoIs...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_-5SuX3mn_3GBQEOMoIstuJN- DYPiwPNa2KPS-4HGxk/edit?usp=sharing)

As for whether you should buy yourself a latte daily or not, do whatever makes you happy. Personally I think 220k in 40 years will make me happier, but I can also see a life-long morning ritual going to a coffee shop and reading the paper while being served a latte appealing.

<comment><USER59> Actually, the S&P has delivered 7% after inflation over its history, not 5%, so the returns are even larger than this.

[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what- average...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average- annual-return-sp-500.asp)

The real thing the article misses, though, is the mindset that giving up a latte is meant to symbolise. That's best expressed in this article:

[https://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains](https://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains)

The point isn't to just drop the latte and see a massive gain. It's to understand that a set of marginal gains made across your life can, together, have a huge cumulative effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I have never seen anyone saying that $5 a day of anything is ruining someone's retirement plans. But yes, spending $5 on a latte, $5 on a croissant, another $5 on candies and a tenner on Uber, ..., and the daily wasted money will eventually add up.

That article is nothing more than a spineless Straw Man fallacy.

</comment><comment><USER61> I remember when I had my first real salaried job out of college. I had a salary of around $40k, and I was extremely strict about how I spent my money. I managed to limit myself to $10k/year in the inner Bay Area. This was in 2010. And, yes, I accumulated some savings.

At the same time, I deprived myself of many experiences, which had a cost, in happiness, connections, and knowledge.

Nowadays I make and spend order of magnitude more. I would never have gotten to the point I am, though, if I had stuck to spending $10k a year. Even if you're crassly trying to maximize wealth-at-the-time-of-retirement, extreme frugality is a suboptimal strategy.

Set a budget. Don't waste money stupidly. But spend it, and spend it on meaningful experiences that provide you value.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is closely related to the idea of being "penny wise and pound foolish." For instance, you are actively depriving yourself a $5 coffee per day (or substitute your vice of choice) but you're leasing a new car every 2 years. In this case, you are not only cutting the wrong indulgences in the name of savings, you are giving yourself a false sense of accomplishment when there are much more beneficial steps that could be taken.

Finances are a hard thing to recommend to anyone else, as there are so many variables in personal finance. But very generally, it's worth considering where the largest single expenditures (or categories) are, and looking at how to lower those numbers first.

<comment><USER63> I assume that the Suze Ormans of the world would tell you to be not just pennywise but poundwise as well. The $5 latte is emblematic: once you start thinking about that $100 monthly expense, you sit and look at your $90 cable bill or your $200 car lease and think whether there are ways to cut back on that as well. The value of cutting out lattes is that it's easy to ask, on a regular basis, "is this making me $5 worth of happy?", whereas a big car payment you can more easily justify as "I need it to get where I'm going", even though a cheaper vehicle could do just as well.

I agree it's more efficient to start with the big expenses and work your way down, but it's sometimes easier, especially if you're just starting to turn your finances around, to start with the little stuff and build your way up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I think the point of the Latte factor, isn't that you shouldn't buy expensive coffee drink. The bigger problem is mindless spending racks up the expense column without adding much value.

Once you get into the habit of getting a coffee from an artisan coffee shop everyday, the value of that great cup of coffee diminishes, and you start to spend money out of habit, not because it adds any more joy, pleasure, or value to you. This is the same as eating out everyday for lunch.

And if mindless consumption seeps into every other aspect of your life, then that's going to cost you dearly.

</comment><comment><USER65> I disagree. My goal is to retire early so every time I actively choose not to buy that coffee and instead save is days off my retirement ETA. If you learn to act frugal during you income generating years you will more easily live with less when you are feeding off your savings.

Substitute the "latte" for any consumable which costs $3-10 a day. These costs really do add up.

I still hit up Starbucks or my local coffee shop about once a week for the experience, since I work from home it's nice to get out.

My coffee from how on my $99 Delongi espresso machine tastes as good as the machines at the shop.

</comment><comment><USER66> I find that the author seems to speak far too much from his own entrepreneurial perspective.

If you have that bent of mind, as so many of the people here do, you always think of money as an investment. You can rationalize a $5 latte purchase if it means you are more productive at work.

But the average guy working a regular job on a fixed income doesn't and shouldn't see money the same way, especially if there is no corporate ladder to climb anymore. What's a $5 cup of coffee do for a line cook at McDonald's except give him a momentary dopamine kick?

</comment><comment><USER67> A lot of this discussion centers around retirement and how many will end up with little-to-no savings to live on when they exit the workforce.

General question: what recourse does someone have that retires with no savings now, in the US?

Some ideas...

1\. Gov: Social Security (Income)

2\. Gov: Medicare (Healthcare)

3\. Gov: Various assistance programs (Food, utilities, etc)

4\. Social: Add roommate(s) to split cost of living expenses

5\. Lifestyle: Downsize

Follow-up question: if the majority of people do not save sufficiently for retirement, then what might the recourse options be 20, 30, 40 years from now?

</comment><comment><USER68> Amazing. This article is an argument _for_ the thing it rails against.

The author starts out saying you clearly shouldn't listen to the financial advice, because it is inaccurate. He then goes on to tell you that, adjusted for inflation, you will save up $90k over 40 years.

$90,000 just for not buying a coffee every day. That is amazing. Even more amazing if you're not a highly paid white-collar worker. $90k buys a lot of prescription pills, or pays for an expensive operation, or an upgraded old folks home. You will need every penny you can get when you're old.

And then there's the slippery slope. If you keep spending willy-nilly, with $2.50 here and $9 there, whenever you feel like it, it _really_ starts to add up. $90k on take-out, $90k on movies, ubers, etc. If we keep buying trifles we could (even adjusted for inflation) actually be wasting a million over our lifetimes.

A smarter way to manage your money is to still have a latte every day, but compress the expense. Save up for 2 months and buy a Nespresso latte machine with reusable pods. Save a few more months and buy one for work! Then have a latte any time you want, for pennies on the dollar.

</comment><comment><USER69> Giving up Lattes and Avocado toast is classic penny wise, pound foolish logic. If $5 / day is going to break the bank you have bigger problems. If $5 / day isn't going to break the bank, you almost certainly have larger expenses that could be trimmed to much larger effect.

Financial insecurity is often a lifestyle problem, but it more often revolves around excessive debt than a few frivolous habits.

</comment><comment><USER70> Author is trying to advocate that people think of themselves as victims in the world, where things simply happen to them. Wages are stagnant, inflation happens, etc. Some of this may be true. But regardless, I'll attempt to save money as I can, rather than throw my hands up and say none of this matters and piss it all away on coffee.

</comment><comment><USER71> "Buying yourself nice things" and "saving enough for retirement" aren't mutually exclusive for a lot of people. IMO, the way to go is to start off by figuring out how much you need to save, setting up your accounts to save that automatically, and then spending the rest guilt-free on whatever you want.

<comment><USER72> It has to do with the intention. If someone is planning to redirect these £€$ 5 per day (150 per month, 1825 per year) on something else, e.g. algo forex trading with a safe 0.20% profit per day, then those 5-per-day will become 650k in 10 years. I like my coffee just as the next guy, but if 'depriving myself' from the daily coffee will help me get to my F.I.R.E. [1,2] ten years sooner, then I am dropping it.

By the way I have quit drinking coffee (only decaf) and juices, but it was more of a health-choice than a financial one. But of course everyone decides what to do with their £€$ 5-per-day :)

[1]: [https://www.financialindependenceretireearly.com/](https://www.financialindependenceretireearly.com/)

[2]: [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial- independence-...](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial-independence- retire-early-fire.asp)

Edit: also.. converting that 5-per-day to 650k in ten years, can make life SO MUCH easier when your kids will have to go to University.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I think part of the problem is how real estate costs and huge franchise a la Starbucks are configured. When you travel in Mediterranean countries independent coffee shops 'bars' are the norm, and a good Italian espresso costs 0.80 euros. Part of it comes from the fact that bars sell a big assortment of alcoholics(and yes Europeans don't seem to have mental association between selling alcohol and getting wasted, so most bars are family friendly), sodas and indigenous sandwiches. That makes selling coffe not a central part of the business hence the reasonable cost, which won't dent your retirement plan nor make you feel miserable. What happened in the Anglosphere (and not only) is fundamentally a habit appropriation without the surrounding conditions to support it and this drives the prices to stupid levels.

</comment><comment><USER74> This article is pointing out the problem with individualizing environmental or social problems. "The reason people are so broke is because they don't have the moral fiber to not buy that $5 latte. If they were smart and frugal, their problems with money would be solved."

No amount of decreased latte consumption will make up for the underlying problems people face - stagnant wadges, increased prices on fixes costs, student debt.

It's the same shaming related to obesity. Has obesity risen because people are now more lazy than in the past, or is because we live in a culture saturated with the marketing and availability of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods?

</comment><comment><USER75> I agree with this a lot.

1 ambulance ride = 2 years of daily coffee. 1 minor knee surgery = 5 years of daily coffee. 1 major knee surgery = 10 years of daily coffee. 1 diabetes diagnosis = 3 cups of coffee/day, lifetime. 1 cancer diagnosis = 1 daily coffee for every one of your children, and their children.

It really is insulting.

</comment><comment><USER76> 1800$ per year will adds up to a lot for anyone still working. if you earn 20K after taxes then that's 9% of your income! If you earn 140K before taxes, 100K after taxes that's still almost 2%! that's almost enough to pay rent for a whole month in many parts of the country!

<comment><USER77> Almost enough? In many parts of the country? You can rent a small studio apartment, or a room in a luxury apartment in New York for significantly less than $1800/mo -- in the second or third most expensive rental market in the country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I think most of this argument is based on a false dichotomy "Saving on coffee is bad advice because there are other things wrong with our finances that have a much bigger impact". The author is also not making a clear distinction between "things that are wrong with our financial/economic system" and "things one has direct and immediate control over", like the money they spend on coffee every day.

Also, no one is claiming that coffee specifically is the key to financial health. But it's the most popular example of frivolous habit-spending that doesn't actually make people happier, a category which makes a up an increasingly large part of Americans' spending.

</comment><comment><USER79> The article misses the point of the proverb competely. It erects a strawman by taking the advice at face value.

The coffee stands for any and all small, regular and avoidable expenses, where minor lifestyle adjustments add up to major savings.

Using a family plan on subscriptions and phone plans, cooking your own meals, weighing the actual cost of owning a certain car / carpooling...... All of these are things are very small, yet regular expenses in a person's life. These things add up.

The lack of mindfulness of such expenses leads to fast and untracked lifestyle creep. The proven also warns against that.

My peers living expenses went up 5 fold, and each of them claims that nothing has changed.

</comment><comment><USER80> Something this article really brought home for me was just how f*^king privileged I am. Not because I can trivially afford a $5 coffee each day. But because of all the linked terms in that article like "Stanford Marshmallow Experiment", "Fixed Costs", "Finite Willpower", "Delayed Gratification" and so forth that I implicitly understand and gloss over.

The fact that I can _read this very article_ is why I can trivially afford a $5 coffee. Maybe if we focussed on education instead of $5 coffees, we could get to the point where we could justifiably ignore the coffees.

</comment><comment><USER81> While I agree that there's a macroeconomic component to everything and it's a bit disingenuous to Ayn-Rand-blame people 100% for their own economic situation, I also don't think you have to be a new genetic race of super-human to be able to focus on the big things AND the little things? Maybe in that order? The oppositional stance is just theater.

Also if this formulation is true:

 _If you can 't afford a coffee you've got bigger problems._

..then this is also true:

 _If you 've got bigger problems, you can't afford a coffee._

Bigger problems might include having an 18% interest credit card. That needs to be treated as an emergency, as someone said, probably Mr. Money Mustache.

</comment><comment><USER82> A coffee is my excuse to go for a walk and fresh air when I'm bored and not being effective. When I get back in way more likely to get stuff done. As a freelancer that's a money-maker I'll happily invest $5 in.

</comment><comment><USER83> I prefer $0.50 lattes that I make at home with my Rancilio Silvia that I bought nearly 5 years ago. At 4 double shot lattes/americanos between myself and my wife, the machine has paid for itself many, many times over. We use $4.99 medium roast beans from Trader Joe's and regular non-organic milk or half&half. Best of all, over the first month or so I dialed in my grind and brewing technique so well, that it's better than what you'd get at a normal coffee shop. I pity the fool who pays $5 for essentially a glass of hot water.

</comment><comment><USER84> I have thought about this quite a lot. I read a lot on FIRE and on personal finance. I think the thing no one mentions in this thread is the possibility of you not making it to 25 years? What if you get a disease or a car accident? You saved all that money for nothing.

I think it's important to enjoy the here and now, but also plan for a future. You never know what could happen. I think it's silly not to just enjoy the moment while you have it. Yes, be fiscally responsible but don't forget the purpose of money is to barter for things you enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER85> > Inflation Adjust It

false. Because the coffee cost also "inflation adjusts", and would probably put the target closer to the $1mm that Orman originally claimed.

> If you earn only the median income of 61,372 – and never receive a raise for > 40 years – that adds up to $2,454,880

Only if you're committing massive tax fraud. Last I checked, the gov lightens your load by about 37% each year.

She's not perfect, but if she gets a large amount of people out of financially clueless to financially "aware and avoidant of obvious mistakes", she's doing a lot of people a great favor.

</comment><comment><USER86> I can remember a time not long ago when refraining from frequent coffee purchases definitely helped, but mostly for opportune leisure spending in other instances. That's when I was barely breaking even as a student.

The budgeting habit stayed with me. I do like to buy my coffee out regularly enough but I'm conscious of what I spend.

It's not always about fighting financial difficulties though. I know some very well-off people who wouldn't spend on anything other than instant coffee at home. Choose your vice/luxury, basically.

</comment><comment><USER87> Can someone explain this Starbucks obsession to me?

Both their raw espresso and the filtered coffee taste like absolute dogshit to me. (I can stomach the milk based drinks as it masks the actual coffee though.)

I'm not a coffee elitist either, I can drink Canadian swill (timmies) and just about any corner store brew, instant packets... Whatever. Just not Starbucks.

The absolute best I've found at a chain by a mile is McCafe but I've never heard an American mention it. Is McDonald's trash in the states? Is Canadian Starbucks different?

</comment><comment><USER88> It's not about not buying things for yourself. It's about not paying $5 for something that is the equivalent of $1 of coffee and $0.50 of milk.

You can spoil yourself and spend money on yourself but do it for things that will actually last and be of use to you. You shouldn't be buying $5 coffees twice a day if you are sleeping on an old mattress, wear old boots, etc.

Do buy yourself expensive coffees, cupcakes or quality aged beer and wine... but make it a special occasion. You will enjoy it more that way anyway.

<comment><USER89> There's other factors at play as well. If I had the coffee beans and milk, I may not necessarily be motivated to make myself a cup. I also probably wouldn't have an espresso machine or know how to make the coffee taste like I want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I know latte is the common reference but I'm shifting my mindset lately, especially having a family. I brew my own coffee at home and pretty frugal. But now if things cost a but more and is convenient, I'll pay for it. For example, parking at the venue vs free street parking. Having two kids in tow is pretty difficult to get them orderly in the car.

Paying a little extra for 2 hotel rooms, versus squeezing youe in laws, 2 kids and yourself and spouse in 1 room...

</comment><comment><USER91> Really glad i invested in a grain coffee machine. Get 1kg of "fair-trade" grain for 15 euros, does this make 200 lattes ? ok, so that 0.075 euro per latte. So yeah, paying $5 for a latte does not seem like a good deal from my point of view. Of course you have to buy the machine, you could probably get a second hand one for 200$, or even a broken one for 100$ and fix it.

</comment><comment><USER92> I usually have 2 coffee a day, or 3 some other days. Let say $5 a cup, it will cost $3560 a year.

Well, I learn to make coffee. In 2 weeks it cost ~$15 (5$ for a 250g ground coffee, 3$ for 2-3 liters of milk for 2 weeks, $5 for a fancy chocolate power, exclude things like electricity to boil water)

Saved $3160 a year while enjoying 2 coffee a day

<comment><USER93> Don't forget to account for the cost of the equipment you're using as well as the time it takes to use and clean the equipment.

<comment><USER92> I use a Vietnamese coffee filter ($5-$10), yes water and electricity costs are excluded

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> I feel articles like this should recommend an annual income threshold, if you are buying these lattes with a credit card while your checking account is over-drafted then it is going to indirectly affect your retirement. But I do acknowledge that most people reading this are probably not in an over-drafted position.

</comment><comment><USER95> What this article ignores is hedonistic adaptation. Only having a fancy latte every week or two will make it far more enjoyable. Having it every day will make you by and large indifferent.

It's not just about saving money, it's about optimising for happiness.

</comment><comment><USER96> Just a summary:

\- Budget to be able to buy lattes. The inflation and results from $100 a month may be better spent frivolously than conserved. In other words, budget for frivolous expenses. \- Don't spend money on this stuff if you've got bigger problems.

My opinion:

I mean... It's a drink. I'd recommend Tim's instead of Starbucks if money is tight. As a person who spent two years homeless, this stuff is helpful for mental health. Being able to have less worries than more worries is important.

Don't forget the old 50/30/20 rule. 50% on needs, 30% on wants, 20% on savings. Recalculate that not to your needs or wants, but how often your unemployed and if that number is more than 20% a year you should increase savings to cover that as well. Then recalculate needs, review on current bills, and rebalance and so on.

Also keep a month or two of cash reserves for emergencies.

Now go buy a mocha, they're better.

</comment><comment><USER97> Time value of money discussions never take into the fact that 1) tomorrow is never guaranteed and 2) there are certain things or experiences you can buy that are more enjoyable when you're young than when you're old.

</comment><comment><USER98> Did I read 12% rate of return?

Come on, it has happened for several years now (well, more or less) but everybody knows it will not last. And, in any case, it has never happened before for 40 years...

</comment><comment><USER99> One coffee every working day was 1% of my income.

So it's not huge but it's not trivial at all.

Especially considering I live in one of those western cities with stagnating wages and absurd property costs.

</comment><comment><USER100> Daily expenses are wierd.

Say your rent is 1000$ a month. That works out to 33$ a day. So if you spend $5 a day on coffee you're spending 15% the amount of your rent in coffee.

</comment><comment><USER101> or you could blow your ten year latte budge on a bigger fancier car. but nobody talks about having to drive a budget compact vehicle to become a millionaire.

so puhlease.

<comment><USER102> Or you could study, improve your skills and get more money to be able to afford the bigger car, among other things while still having the latte.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Advice like this isn't real financial advice. It's a thinly veiled way of telling the poor and middle class to accept less or starve.

</comment><comment><USER104> I think the issue is more around $5 purchases add up. Once a $5 latte becomes acceptable, then $5 pizza, $5 crap from a retail place etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER105> Did the article even mention fees and taxes? 8% adjusted for inflation will more than likely be just 3% once you figure in fees and taxes.

</comment><comment><USER106> My brain parsed this at first glance as "Buy Yourself a Lathe." Of course, I'd already been thinking about buying a lathe.

</comment><comment><USER100> I disagree.

Your reuccuring daily spending is the innermost loop in your retirement saving program. That's where you'll get the most bang for your buck.

</comment><comment><USER107> If I was doing paid work instead of reading HN I could afford several extra lattes per day.

You can just have your latte and decide it is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER102> Agree. It's just basic micro vs macro. If you've played any video game competitively you would know the difference.

</comment><comment><USER108> Also you might die without any of the minor joy that a coffee might give you, and none of the benefit of the savings.

</comment><comment><USER109> Save up some 12-15 lattes and buy yourself a share of SBUX. Then go to Starbucks and buy yourself a latte.

</comment><comment><USER110> Depends on the people $5 x 20 days = $100 a month = $1200 a year. That's not a small amount

<comment><USER111> One of his points is "Focus on large fixed costs, not small discretionary ones", so while that isn't a small amount, that might be half how much your mortgage costs a MONTH. Until you optimize the mortgage, the coffee is less of a concern.

<comment><USER110> Pay $1200 a year more towards the mortgage is pretty good financial decision

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> $5 latte + $6 + 1 hour ($50 in opportunity cost?) for a round trip. It adds up if you do the latte thing every day.

How many people in this country spend $3k/year in lattes but don't invest $3k/year for their retirement. Wasn't there an app that did just that - rounded up your spending to put the remainder in an investment account?

</comment><comment><USER113> I guess at least by the "it costs you 1 million dollars" logic, you could afford a latte per day if you can also afford to save 10$ a day. Then by the same calculation, you would accumulate 2 Million $ for retirement.

</comment><comment><USER114> It sure as hell matters if you're poor.

</comment><comment><USER115> tldr; inflation-adjusted, a $5 daily latte might put about $80-$100k dent in your retirement coffer. An opinion is presented that this is a good tradeoff if you like latte.

</comment><comment><USER116> What I don't see mentioned in the article or comments is the fact that the latte isn't the only $5 decision we make every day. We can choose not to buy the latte, and to pack our own lunch, and to choose cheaper veg instead of meats at the grocery store, and on and on. Frequently it's multiple smaller choices that add up to noticeable benefit, even when a single latte or lunch out won't break the bank.

(of course there are frequently good reasons to buy things, particularly when there's a social component -- e.g. as a byproduct of spending time with people, as an informal break with coworkers)

</comment><comment><USER117> Say you make the US average $56k, you're spending 3.2% of your income on coffee.

3.2% on bean water.

But who with a latte addiction _just_ buys the latte? Kick in one of AOCs $7 croissants a day (extreme for the sake of example) and you're up to $12/day => $4380 a year, or 7.8% of your annual income on one meal a day.

So maybe consider buying a latte machine instead.

<comment><USER18> I always find these articles kind of amusing.

In the UK we have Pret. 99p ($1.30) for a coffee. I'd get it in the middle of a day if I were far from home.

Buying fancy coffee in the morning for breakfast strikes me as an extremely odd use of money. You've just left your house?

<comment><USER117> For a lot of Americans, the first stop they make on the way to work is Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts or McDonald's for coffee.

It's bizarre.

<comment><USER118> As an American it does seem normalized. I found it less expensive to buy a good espresso machine for home and just make my coffee before I start my day. It paid off doubly when I started working remotely.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ironies of Automation [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.ise.ncsu.edu/nsf_itr/794B/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica.pdf <comment> no-s I've always liked this paper and still refer to it IRL as part of explaining how to stand up an operations team. Hacker News has covered it before with some worthwhile comments [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7726496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7726496)</comment>


Thoughts on preventing Cloudbleed - <AUTHOR> http://blog.loadzero.com/blog/thoughts-on-cloudbleed/ <comment><USER2> A investigative authority like the NTSB is a really interesting idea. If it had the authority to level fines against companies that have been negligent or acted without due care it might have a real effect on behavior.

The only current recourse for those affected by these sorts of incidents is class action suits or public outrage/reputation damage. Both of these seem limited and put the onus on those who are impacted to fight for recompense.</comment>


It's a Tough Job Market for the Young Without College Degrees - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/business/economy/its-a-tough-job-market-for-the-young-without-college-degrees.html?action=click&contentCollection=education&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11671933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11671933)

<comment><USER3> Move and merge the comments there?

<comment><USER2> Ok, done.</comment></comment></comment>


Uvloop – Ultra fast implementation of asyncio event loop on top of libuv - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/magicstack/uvloop <comment><USER2> Pleased to see a uvloop link here again ;) I'm the author, feel free to ask questions.

I also recommend to read our blog posts about uvloop and asyncio on magic.io

<comment><USER3> I have some questions related to the usage of async. At what scale(in terms of number of users or server load) would choosing async based web frameworks over traditional web frameworks like Django/Pylons make sense?

While using async is much easier with the new async/await syntax compared to traditional async solutions like twisted, tornado etc., a lot of popular database connectors and ORMs do not support async currently.

Even if the libraries a person needs are present at the moment, there's always the chance that a library maybe required in the future that does not support async and it may not be feasible to write a replacement(either due to the person's lack of expertise or due to lack of funds to hire someone else to write it).

In such a case, would using a traditional library by spawning threads to run any blocking operation be a good stop-gap solution(until an async replacement comes along)?

<comment><USER4> In general, mixing synchronous and asynchronous I/O typically brings you the worst in both worlds.

This has been a nightmare in C# which pioneered async/await - a lot of developers are struggling with footguns from mixing sync and async code.

Ryan Dhal said that he picked JavaScript for Node because he was afraid of this and wanted a language without synchronous APIs already built in.

I think Python 3.5+ async/await is fantastic don't get me wrong - but if you want to mix and match I'd recommend getting a second server that runs the synchronous framework and then communicating over network (REST HTTP for example) between the completely asynchronous server and the one running the thread pool.

<comment><USER5> > This has been a nightmare in C# which pioneered async/await - a lot of > developers are struggling with footguns from mixing sync and async code.

The big difference is that C# supports both multithreading and parallelism out of the box. Python has multithreading but with a GIL, nodejs has none of the 2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What are the benchmarks as compared to curio?

Are there any benefits to using uvloop vs curio?</comment>


Show HN: libsrt – fast C library with heap and stack allocation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/faragon/libsrt

<comment><USER2> Everyone's making libraries these days, while the world needs more actual applications.

The amount of macros is staggering. Your identifier names are short to the point of losing readability. And you clearly hate vertical whitespace.

As a C programmer, I would not use this.

Points for licensing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback. Which application do you need? (I could add it as example for the library)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Suggestions?

<comment><USER3> Off-topic: I think you might need to set your email address in the repository for Github to track your public contributions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.</comment></comment></comment>


Let's Draw Together - <AUTHOR> https://multiuser-sketchpad.glitch.me/ <comment><USER2> When somebody draws or writes something racist it's fascinating to watch how quickly a ton of other cursors rush to cover it up or change it. Glad to see most people not approving of swastikas and slurs.

EDIT: on a more entertaining note, I just saw somebody with great handwriting write "Incredible how fast something like this devolves into vulgarity". Vulgarity was immediately scratched out and replaced by a crudely written "dicks".

<comment><USER3> Only some slurs are erased. Ones against other groups are left up. It shows it's PC conditioning, not anything genuine.

<comment><USER2> I was on there for a couple of hours, and I just saw the same repeated racist, homophobic, and anti-semitic slurs again and again and again (not to mention constant swastikas). I don't even know what types of "PC-approved" slurs you're referring to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> #!/usr/bin/env zsh

dir=0

up() { xdotool mouseup 1 }

down() { xdotool mousedown 1 }

right() { dir=$(expr $dir + $1) }

left() { dir=$(expr $dir - $1) }

walk() { for i in {1..$1}; do xdotool mousemove_relative --sync --polar $dir 1 done }

square() { down for i in {1..4}; do walk 20 right 90 done up }

block () { down for i in {1..10}; do walk 200 right 90 walk 1 right 90 walk 200 left 90 walk 1 left 90 done up }

circle () {

}

block

# go crazy

<comment><USER4> Better version:

[https://gist.github.com/fctorial/4cef5d564d84662baacfebaed7c...](https://gist.github.com/fctorial/4cef5d564d84662baacfebaed7c19913)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This project has received too many requests, please try again later.

<comment><USER6> Ironic that the URL is glitch.me

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Super fun. As an artist, I drew a realistic face and the whole room stopped what the were doing and helped. Great link.

</comment><comment><USER8> Cool, I like it, it would be nice to have quick hashed rooms, so you can share it with specific group.

<comment><USER2> I used to use [http://flockdraw.com/](http://flockdraw.com/) for that, but it uses Flash. There's been a lot of other similar things that have come and gone over the years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> To download the code from glitch:

git clone [https://api.glitch.com/git/multiuser- sketchpad](https://api.glitch.com/git/multiuser-sketchpad)

</comment><comment><USER10> The glitch.com "this is the free tier and you need to upgrade" is uncharacteristically brutal considering how chill they are as a company.

You can see the source here [https://glitch.com/~multiuser- sketchpad](https://glitch.com/~multiuser-sketchpad) ... and can "remix" to fork your own version of the project.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wrote 'Wow'. Then somebody wrote over it: 'You are not your thoughts." I, then, replied, "Then what am I?". Then, he wrote, "your actions." I followed up with, "But your thoughts lead to actions."

</comment><comment><USER12> That was fun until we killed it :)

</comment><comment><USER13> function createEvent(type, x, y) { const event = new PointerEvent(type, {pointerId: 1, bubbles: true, cancelable: true, pointerType: "touch", width: 100, height: 100, isPrimary: true, clientX: x, clientY: y }); const element = document.getElementById('canvas'); element.dispatchEvent(event); }

createEvent("pointerdown", 0, 300); for(x = 0; x < 100; x+=10) { createEvent("pointermove", x, 300) } createEvent("pointerup", 100, 300);

what am I doing wrong?

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow glitch is awesome, the idea of cloud development platform is just fascinating! My second time using this website, feels like the site is really taking off.

</comment><comment><USER15> Putting the page in background and coming back made the screen go white for a while, eventually the art came back. I was a bit concerned I lost the page.

</comment><comment><USER16> One minute in and it's already humanity in a bottle. One person draws world map, another writes n-word across the African continent. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER17> Well that was fun, turning someone else's swastikas into Windows logos and "MAGA" into "VAGINA"

</comment><comment><USER18> Of course, everyone started drawing penises, swastikas, and "Trump"...

<comment><USER19> I drew a 3D isomorphic "HI" and a nice face with a unicorn horn :)

<comment><USER20> I'm one of the penis drawers. Hask me anything.

<comment><USER21> Whose penis were you drawing?

<comment><USER22> reasonable question</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The best description yet of LIGO's discovery - <AUTHOR> http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1853 <comment><USER3> I was at the national press club on Thursday morning when they announced - <USER2> was there for a different event. I literally had to barge my way through a herd of physicists and press to get to where I was going. It was really cool to see the excitement in the room. We heard the applause from across the hall when they announced.</comment>


Superformula - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superformula <comment><USER2> Aw, they're concave.

Many years ago, when Symbolics LISP machines roamed the earth, Alex Pentland wrote the first animation physics engine. Everything was a deformed superellipse, or rather the solid of rotation of one. You could apply a bend and a taper to a superellipse-generated solid. These were called "superquadrics".[1] I spent much time trying to come up with an analytical formula for the closest distance between two such objects, for collision detection. This was a dead end; polyhedra and meshes, although they required much more bookkeeping, were more useful in programs. Interest in superquadrics died out.

<comment><USER3> Did you intended to leave a reference for note [1]?

<comment><USER2> Sorry. [1]

[1] [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/papers/pami91/pami91.pdf](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/papers/pami91/pami91.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am guessing this is being posted in relation to the new PS4 game coming out, "No Man's Sky". See controversial article about it here (published yesterday): [http://www.pcgamer.com/company-claims-no-mans-sky-uses- its-p...](http://www.pcgamer.com/company-claims-no-mans-sky-uses-its-patented- equation-without-permission/)

<comment><USER5> Wait, mathematical functions are _patentable_!?

<comment><USER6> May not survive, but it's really their application that's patented. You can patent inventions and processes (how software patents came into being, and also how someone patented a "method for exercising cats" \- a laser pointer mounted to a platform that moved it randomly).

<comment><USER7> In some countries you can't patent formulas or processes or even ideas...

<comment><USER8> Ideas aren't patentable at all.

In no country I guess. You have to transform your idea in something more concrete first. A piece of hardware, a process, a composition of matter you name it.

Imagine all those stupid ideas from just lying in the bed and thinking about being patented. Nothing would have been created but everything would have been patented. That's worse than patenting a formula or a piece of software.

<comment><USER3> One can argue that that thought requires effort as well as a number of other preconditions which are not guaranteed to occur without heavy investment. Not all ideas are equal. Some ideas may be just a mindless combination that can be otherwise obtained from a machinal set up, whereas others can be the result of years of work or of some genius visionary. What I consider necessary is a rating system and a qualification threshold for what is worth to be considered a thing that can be claimed and what can not. I'm aware that a deep rabbit hole is opening here around this issue, but the question is if it's worth having it nevertheless compared to what we have now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Currently, the superformula is patented by Gielis, [2] but the patent was > withdrawn in 2006 because of the patent fees not being paid.[3]_

I did not know you could patent a mathematical formula.

<comment><USER10> Especially one that is obvious. I remember drawing similar things using a TI-84 in high school math, probably when we learned about polar coordinates.

<comment><USER11> Well in this case the developer of NMS specifically said he was struggling with planet generation until he discovered that exact formula, so you can understand why there is _some_ (not a lot mind) reasoning for the company who owns this patent (who are making a game involving it iirc) are making this claim. Judging by their statement though it seems they want more of a 'partnership' type thing (knowledge sharing, ride on NMS coattails for a bit etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Play with the superformula in d3.js: [http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1021103](http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1021103)

<comment><USER12> Also, tweening between superformula shapes in d3.js: [http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1020902](http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1020902)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the superformula itself is patented, what protection does that give to a generalization of it, like replacing m with y & z as presented in the article?

<comment><USER14> None really, it is just prior art. The modification is substantial enough.

Caveat: not a patent lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > You can, however, patent the practical application of a mathematical formula

> Genicap's patent calls out the formula's potential use in "graphics programs > (e.g., 2D, 3D, etc.); CAD software; finite element analysis programs; wave > generation programs; or other software," it doesn't specifically mention > game design (procedurally generated or otherwise).

[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/07/no-mans-sky-faces- pote...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/07/no-mans-sky-faces-potential- patent-fight-over-use-of-superformula/)

</comment><comment><USER16> How hard is it to invert? e.g. given a set of points along a particular curve, how difficult is it to find the values of the 6 parameters that generated it?

<comment><USER17> If you know a,b,m,n1,n2,n3, and use sufficient points, you may be able to get an interpolated approximation.

In general, one can fit many such curves through a finite set of points. [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/65970/can-a- function...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/65970/can-a-function-be- found-to-fit-any-set-of-points)

A question originally asked by Leibniz to determine the measure of usefulness of a law. [https://plus.maths.org/content/omega-and-why-maths-has-no- to...](https://plus.maths.org/content/omega-and-why-maths-has-no-toes).

If you don't have the 6 parameters, good luck. A unique inverse is defined only for injective functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For even more gielis visualization pleasure, check this out: [https://www.thregr.org/~wavexx/software/gte/](https://www.thregr.org/~wavexx/software/gte/)

</comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of the polygon tool of Inkscape .

Video : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBLy9KDPMHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBLy9KDPMHk)

</comment><comment><USER20> > While the above equation, dubbed the "superformula" by Gielis (2003), is > clearly capable of describing a number of diverse biological shapes having a > variety of symmetries, it seems unlikely that this formula has any > particularly fundamental biological significance (Peterson 2002, Whitfield > 2003) beyond as a possibly convenient parametrization. [1]

I'm not a huge fan of these random parametrizations; overall, it seems like they have no physical significance (yay! it can describe a bunch of things! I can do that anyways by picking a linear space with enough dimensions or a nice non-linear kernel and projecting into the first few principal components, and best of all, it's going to be fit directly to my problem). I'd like to be enlightened as to why this is such a big deal and why anyone would do this instead of parametrization of meshes for procedural generation? It seems a few comments here are referencing NMS, hence the question.

[1] [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Superellipse.html](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Superellipse.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Seems kind of like taking the fourier transform to the polar space.

</comment><comment><USER22> If I made a formula that is more generalized, patents still apply?

Here it is in complex numbers:

        p = (r1*cos(ph1 + th) + 1.0*I*r2*sin(ph2 + th))*
       (Abs(cos(m*th/4)/a)**n2 + Abs(sin(m*th/4)/b)**n3)**(-1/n1)

This can produce a number of interesting shapes that original Gielis transforms can't.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if there is a distance function to it, so you can render it in 3D using sphere tracing.

<comment><USER24> This Shadertoy ([https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4llGWM](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4llGWM)) uses sphere tracing it but doesn't use a real distance function, the author asks the same question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> For any D3 users, there is a superformula plugin. Very handy. [http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1020902](http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/1020902)

</comment><comment><USER26> The variations are interesting in relation to the approach and recession of the point on the line from the origin.

<comment><USER27> This is my take away:

PolarPlot[(Abs[Cos[2 _(t - Pi /2)/4]] + Abs[Sin[44_(t - Pi/2)/4]])^(-1/(-0.2)), {t, 0, 2*Pi}, PlotRange -> {{-20, 20}, {-5, 32}}, PlotStyle -> Darker[Green, 0.2], PlotTheme -> "Marketing"]

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can we formulate Mobius Strip using this?

</comment><comment><USER29> very cool

</comment><comment><USER30> Bang !</comment>