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

The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

supernuclear.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#71

Post by ghaff »

ghaff wrote: post #15
derektank wrote: post #8

>With six roommates, I would cook a couple dishes a week. Every meal would be multi course, with different people making salad, protein, sides, and maybe mixing up some drinks for the cooks. I've never split meals with any of my roommates when I had them, and I cringe at the idea of asking them to accommodate my own idiosyncratic tastes. I, naturally, have lived on my own since I could possibly afford it. But I can s…

In school, with roommates/housemates, we would very seldom do shared meals (where one person basically prepped the meal) and I do pot-lucks with friends today. But it's not the normal thing. People have different schedules and preferences.

I'd add that there was an activity crowd that I'd eat (Chinese) out with on a very regular basis in school but we never cooked together.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#73

Post by sitzkrieg »

Aurornis wrote: post #38

The talk about having roommates into your 30s, 40s, and 50s to be able to split the load, avoid loneliness, socialize more, find motivation to do things with others, and have interesting conversations with people in different life situations is all interesting and good. Certainly something a single person should at least consider. But it also feels funny to read this as a someone with a family at home, because a heal…

having a family or home is no longer affordable either way.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#74

Post by illiac786 »

cowcity wrote: post #61
GregDavidson wrote: post #33

I'm a geek and have shared my home with housemates for 50 years. When I was poor and when I was prosperous. When I was married and when I was not. It's almost always been good for me, including for growth in my social intelligence. It was especially valuable when my wife died. Some of my housemates have been challenging. More became close friends. Living together people take their masks off. Quality social connection…

[flagged]

Hmmm, but if you’re the landlord and you only care about money as you imply, why wouldn’t you move out and just rent, mrather than dealing with roommates?

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#75

Post by illiac786 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #68
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #27

In the US, is it concerning when a "grown man" in his 30s or 40s and beyond still lives with roommates, when dating and trying to attract a mate? Is there an expectation that you should be displaying a certain lifestyle that will attract a partner, and if you're living with a bunch of roommates, you're failing to do that? I believe that's not the case in many other countries in the world, but what about the US?

Yes, it is financially concerning. You do not need to own a house, but you do need to show you are financially responsible enough to pay for rent, utilities, etc all by yourself.

I would argue that living with roommates may be harder than living alone, from a financial responsibility point of view. You not only need to be responsible for yourself but you need to deal with roommates which may not be.

Of course, you could be the financially irresponsible roommate, but I think your date can figure this out quite rapidly then, based on how much your roommates will hate you ;)

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#76

Post by w10-1 »

If it's a great house or location or deal, people will stay notwithstanding conflict.

When housemates go from single to partnered, it's an unsolvable conflict because housemates are not the priority and the partner is mostly unwanted in the house.

If you as a single person join a house with committed partners, you'll forever have to accept what they want.

When people disagree, the stakes of one's living space is typically higher than the problem, which the aggressive are happy to hostage to get what they want.

Housemates learn a lot about you that you don't really want to be public, but they're not committed to keeping your secrets and might even use them against you.

Housemates can start depending on you emotionally.

Having friendly housemates can reduce the pressure to find a partner, precisely when othees are partnering. Your choices only get more narrow from delaying.

Long-term living together requires commitment, mutual respect, and effective governance that can't be abused. All that is quite the opposite from the usual drivers: convenience, shared cost, and lightweight human contact.

Worse, shared housing is always better and cheaper than buying, so after decades of living well you'll still be a renter (unable to control your destiny) rather than an owner.

You might think you'll share for temporary situations, but not make it a lifestyle. But the more you get used to it, the less tolerance you'll have for the sacrifices necessary for a committed partner and home equity.

What would your future self want you to do?

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#77

Post by illiac786 »

jlarocco wrote: post #46

I think personality plays a big role. If it works for you, great! But living with a group of people sounds like hell to me. When I go home, I want to be alone and relax. I don't want to deal with other people's shit, and I don't want to bother them with mine. It's so unappealling to me, I would live out of my car before I gave in and tried living with roommates.

Well you have your room for your alone time, it’s like in a family.

I loved it personally, I made amazing connections, I couldn’t get enough of it. Couldn’t figure out a way to have kids and stay in a shared apartment unfortunately, although I know it’s possible. so that phase of my life is over – and I miss it.

But it’s a matter of personal preference for sure.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#78

Post by _alternator_ »

w10-1 wrote: post #76

If it's a great house or location or deal, people will stay notwithstanding conflict. When housemates go from single to partnered, it's an unsolvable conflict because housemates are not the priority and the partner is mostly unwanted in the house. If you as a single person join a house with committed partners, you'll forever have to accept what they want. When people disagree, the stakes of one's living space is typi…

Just want to point out that having a cheaper living situation doesn’t preclude homeownership later—it makes it more feasible.

I’ve lived in SF (communally) for about 10 years now. The first 5 years I lived here help me build up my savings, and then a housemate, my wife, and I bought a building in the city that now houses 8 adults. I definitely could not have afforded this paying for a one bedroom in the city, and living with roommates meant I had lots of time to find people who would be willing to go in on a house with me!

But even if this weren’t the case, over 5 years we probably saved ~200k in rent. Putting that into the stock market would typically yield much better returns than owning a home (which is typically a wash after mortgage interest is factored in).

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#79

Post by cowcity »

illiac786 wrote: post #74
cowcity wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hmmm, but if you’re the landlord and you only care about money as you imply, why wouldn’t you move out and just rent, mrather than dealing with roommates?

Landlords have much more power. Usually more money too, but always more power.

Source: I am a landlord and I could temporarily destroy either of my roommates' livelihoods at the drop of a dime whenever I please. As a result, they are basically my permanent friends until they save up enough to move out. The difference between me and others in my position is I understand these are material relationships more than social relationships, and the only way to change that is not being the landlord.

When Marxists want to get rid of landlords, this is what they mean. They simply want more social relationships rather than material relationships. That's why it's called socialism.

Re: The case for having roommates even when you can afford to live alone

#80

Post by Melatonic »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #27

In the US, is it concerning when a "grown man" in his 30s or 40s and beyond still lives with roommates, when dating and trying to attract a mate? Is there an expectation that you should be displaying a certain lifestyle that will attract a partner, and if you're living with a bunch of roommates, you're failing to do that? I believe that's not the case in many other countries in the world, but what about the US?

Depends on the situation. Generally I would say yes but I also know of successful people who have roomates (and can thus afford larger and cooler accommodations) and those people can of course throw parties and potlucks easier.

If you live in a shithole by yourself obviously that's not going to be attractive

Post reply on HN