Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to live on $432 a month in America

shagbark.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 764 posts

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#421

Post by TacticalCoder »

bruce511 wrote: post #392
johnnyanmac wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone has a home to go to. Broken families, dead families, there may no longer be room at a home, etc. Everyone's circumstances are different. And honestly, based on some cultures, home isn't free either. The moment I got back home, I was given a few months to find work, but had to pay rent in 3 months no matter what. I was doing temp work for one month while interviews finished

Of course you are right, not everyone has the option to move back in either their parents, and of course that option (when available) is often not rent free (nor should it be.) However I don't think that's what the parent poster meant. I think he meant "home" is the "home town" sense. There's a perception that young people (for probably 60 years now) see "getting out of this town" as a major life goal. Small towns fi…

There are many parents who allow their kids to live rent free. First job can then DCA the near entire salary and what you save early on compounds like crazy for life.

Parents telling kids in this world to "go work 24/7 on the treadmill without being able to save" should wonder if having kids wasn't something selfish they did like having a pet.

I was always welcome at my mother's home and she told me there would always be shelter and food for me, whenever I'd come.

The selfish people who kick their kids out of their home at 18 y/o are people best let out of my life.

If a kid is working, I see no reason why parents shouldn't let them

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#422

Post by xp84 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #334
xp84 wrote: post #270

I've commented (probably too much) to argue with the harshest critics of this piece, but I am surprised to not have seen much this criticism which is my main one: Supposing I've made peace with the main gist of this: Cut living expenses to a point where you can work ¼ or so of the time most of us spend working by living somewhere cheap and not being so materialistic. The missing piece here is social connections. Fami…

Rural living also looks cheaper because most people do not even remotely consider the costs of transportation. The IRS estimates per-mile deduction at well over 60 cents per mile. If you have to drive 15 miles to the grocery store and back, your grocery bill goes up $18/trip. If you need to drive 15 miles to work and back, take $90/week out of your paycheck. Then there's the fact that whoever is The Employer in that…

> drive 15 miles to the grocery store and back,

Okay, but you're inventing a strawman there, since there are millions of places to live that are far closer than 15 miles away from basic services. The outskirts of Massena for instance, are about 2 miles from Walmart.

> whoever is The Employer in that region - if you lose your job there, you're fucked

The article is specifically about how with a low cost of living you don't even need full time work. It's not about moving to a company town to work a 9-5 at a factory.

> a city get some federal funding for electric or hybrid transit busses that will serve several thousand people a day

I mean, they most definitely do get that federal funding -- this fiscal year there is $1.5 billion available. Here's[0] last fiscal year's winners. But I assume the meaning of your comment is that it bothers you that someone somewhere complained about that fact? I doubt it's the rural folks complaining, probably car drivers in the city complaining that the money didn't all go to fixing the potholes, the same cranks who complain about bike lanes, etc.

It is interesting how this proposal that people even just consider rural living as a thought experiment seems to have triggered a lot of people. If you love the city yet simultaneously think it's too expensive, other people opening their minds to living somewhere else is good for you. It doesn't have to be for you for it to be an okay idea.

[0] https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fy24-fta-bus-and-...

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#423

Post by xp84 »

drewg123 wrote: post #308
xp84 wrote: post #270

I've commented (probably too much) to argue with the harshest critics of this piece, but I am surprised to not have seen much this criticism which is my main one: Supposing I've made peace with the main gist of this: Cut living expenses to a point where you can work ¼ or so of the time most of us spend working by living somewhere cheap and not being so materialistic. The missing piece here is social connections. Fami…

The problem is that its across an international border from the Montreal airport. So you'd need to cross a border twice to fly to a domestic US destination and twice more on your return. Crossing a border is always an unknown in terms of delays, so I question the practicality. I'd personally feel like I needed to leave way more than 90 minutes to ge to the airport. FWIW, I've crossed the border at both Cornwall and O…

Indeed, though you could probably do pretty well by getting a NEXUS membership for this use case. At least for now, though obviously US-Canada relations are getting stupider by the week so who knows how many dumb roadblocks will end up being thrown up.

I just noticed that Syracuse has an airport with passenger service, only 2 ½ hours away, so that's another option, if the "international flight" hassle plus border crossing actually burns an hour.

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#424

Post by supermatt »

xp84 wrote: post #270

I've commented (probably too much) to argue with the harshest critics of this piece, but I am surprised to not have seen much this criticism which is my main one: Supposing I've made peace with the main gist of this: Cut living expenses to a point where you can work ¼ or so of the time most of us spend working by living somewhere cheap and not being so materialistic. The missing piece here is social connections. Fami…

This is an example of a place. There are likely many such places all over the USA within a few hours drive of where your friends and family live.

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#426

Post by xp84 »

loandbehold wrote: post #407
xp84 wrote: post #270

I've commented (probably too much) to argue with the harshest critics of this piece, but I am surprised to not have seen much this criticism which is my main one: Supposing I've made peace with the main gist of this: Cut living expenses to a point where you can work ¼ or so of the time most of us spend working by living somewhere cheap and not being so materialistic. The missing piece here is social connections. Fami…

Professionals move from city to city all the time due to jobs. In the modern world it's easier to keep in touch with family and friends with Internet and cheap (by historical standards) flights.

I have 3 close friends - they live about an hour away, about 8 hours drive away (or about an hour of flying + 1-2 hours driving), and one on the other side of the country.

"Keeping in touch via Internet" for me is a pale imitation of what I want from a friendship. We text a few times a week. I visit each of them 1-2 times a year. I miss them a lot.

This isn't to claim it's impossible to do better. But I have a feeling that especially those on the "urban" side of the friendship just have a hard time making time for say, a Zoom call with you on the same frequency as they may have gone out with you for dinner or drinks. Especially group dynamics don't allow this: If you were part of a group of 5 friends that hung out together, they'll just start hanging out without you, and no time will be opening up in all of their schedules to devote to tele-friendship. Those friendships will suffer.

And remember, the "low cost of living, low earning" thesis we're discussing does mostly rule out even those "cheap" flights (which stop being cheap really quick once you have a family, so multiply all prices by 2, 3, 4...)

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#427

Post by yodsanklai »

lesuorac wrote: post #299
jvanderbot wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any discussion of staying near family and friends on a forum predominated by startups out of the bay area is completely disingenuous. But that aside, I suggest this is front page and meaningful not because it brings up a third option (to stay home, move to a city, or move to rural NY), but instead because it advocates accidentally for just staying home . Your family probably already lives in an area that is more affo…

Eh, perhaps a curious administrator can share the data but I really suspect just through sheer numbers most people on this forum do not live in the bay area. The NYC metro area is 23 million [1] which is about 7% of the country (23/300). There's a good chance somebody who works in NYC grew up nearby. That said, if you chase fortune and fame for a decade and then retire to Minnesota you still come out ahead... Even if…

A lot of people in this forum don't even live in the US (if not most).

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#428

Post by xp84 »

nobodywillobsrv wrote: post #341
xp84 wrote: post #270

I've commented (probably too much) to argue with the harshest critics of this piece, but I am surprised to not have seen much this criticism which is my main one: Supposing I've made peace with the main gist of this: Cut living expenses to a point where you can work ¼ or so of the time most of us spend working by living somewhere cheap and not being so materialistic. The missing piece here is social connections. Fami…

To be fair, leaving everyone behind and not seeing them again was kind of what people did in the great grandfather era mentioned in the article. Even not that long ago. I was talking to someone only perhaps grandma age the other day who said their brother's family moved to BC and they didn't see them for 25 years. Your comment does focus in on the interesting point in that connected places have perhaps not scaled as…

This is very true, that is definitely a sacrifice that they were much more willing to make than most of us today.

They would move 1,000 miles or more, or even across the sea and then send back and forth letters every few months. "Alice had a baby, she named him Robert Joseph. I have secured work at the textile mill, and am saving to buy a plot of land. The weather here is cold in winter, but the summers are somewhat more tolerable."

The interesting thing is, I feel like they moved back then mainly because there wasn't sufficient land or jobs where they came from. Today, the urban dwellers this article is talking about has an equal dearth of land and jobs available to them in the city, but they don't feel like the countryside has anything to offer them either.

Re: How to live on $432 a month in America

#429

Post by hysan »

an_guy wrote: post #406
hysan wrote: post #391

I flagged this article and later saw it dead, so I’m quite surprised it came back. I found the content extremely shallow and lacking nuance. Others have mentioned, but it leaves out huge caveats because it would destroy the the conclusion - the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc. The list of obvio…

> the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc Anyone moving to bay area for a higher income job would have most of these issues. A forum full of people willing to migrate for better income and lifestyle should not be criticizing "cost of moving", "social connections", "health disabilities" and "retirem…

I might be misreading your reply, but what you’re keying in on and singling out is a tiny fraction of the audience the article is arguing for. My problem is with how shallow this article is and how it throws a wide net that doesn’t cover a ton of situations that prevent people from doing what he claims is possible for just about anyone if they change their mindset. If the argument were just for the subset of users you’re using as an example, then sure? But that’s isn’t as clickbaity and certainly doesn’t support the claim that any young person can just up and do what the writer claims.
Post reply on HN