How to Afford Anything

> It doesn't seem nearly as bad as the "live with your parents" advice.

What's wrong with that advice? It's an American thing that kids need to move out on their own at 18. My wife's culture sees that as rather harsh. She lived at home until 28, when at 27 she married. Her older sister lived at home, sharing a room with their younger sister, until she was 25 (I think), when she finally married and moved out for the first time. Her husband lived at home with his parents in a small room until he got married as well.

I was the odd one out, being American, and living on my own.

The entire family support structure is there. Living at home has many benefits. They were able to go to school, focus on their education, and their career early on without having to worry about paying lots of bills and taking care of their own house.

You'd think they wouldn't be ready for the real world, but you'd be wrong. In my brother-in-laws case, he had bought a house at about 20, and rented it out. This was done with his money, that he had saved, because his parents paid for everything (with some fun and interesting conditions along the way). But the house was bought, and rented for many years before they moved in after being married.

My wife and I benefit equally in many other ways from this close knit family life. We have day-care providers next door: family we can trust. Family is close, and we get the benefits that entail.

Sure, their are downsides, but overall, it's made me realize how harsh the "American" view of an 18-year-old's responsibilities are. If anything, it does less to support them in the long run.

No, living with your parents isn't bad. My wife has cousins in their 30's that are still living with their parents, preparing for marriage. A couple are preparing to move out, as they haven't married yet.

It's a different culture, for sure. But it's not as bad as it seems. I thought it was odd when I first saw it first hand, but after years of seeing the results, I can't help but think that throwing kids out at 18 is by far the weirder approach.

> I mean, he's advocating all this extreme frugality as a way to afford camera gear, right?

No. He's advocating all these ideas as methods you can use to obtain the things you really want.

> I mean, he's advocating all this extreme frugality as a way to afford camera gear, right?

All this pain to drop $2.5k per year on a Nikon camera? Dude, seriously, just take a few months and learn some skills at something, then get a decent job using them. You'll be able to buy a new camera every freaking month.

I mean I'm all for living within your means and planning and frugality but seriously, don't eat out except for the cheapest fast food around? That's the wrong way to go about it. Upgrade your cash flow, not downgrade your life.

> You'll be able to buy a new camera every freaking month.

Yes, but on the other side, that "decent job" would (probably) significantly reduce the free time he can commit to photography. As one famous writer (or was it a philosopher?) once said that he don't have time to make money. ;-)

Obsessive frugality strikes me as antithetical to spartan living, a goal that may not be the authors but does seem to be what most here are interested in, judging by past submissions of the same genre.

If you read the whole article you'll see that he doesn't want to have a normal full time job. I don't know what his background is but he claims he used to be making 6 figures, so he probably has some viable skills. He has intentionally chosen to prioritize free time and freedom over cash-flow. While I probably wouldn't make the same choice myself, I can't really argue that he has made the wrong choice.