How to live on $432 a month in America

> Everyone claims it's about living in a city with available services

The reality is that it's mostly about living in a city with available jobs

What's the job market like near this lovely little $432 per month place described in the article? How am I going to pay for it?

They suggested working part time at a gas station or seasonally somewhere else which is incredible.

I have had to travel across the country multiple times to “live where the jobs are” so I find it hard to believe that the whole time I could have not done that and just picked some remote isolated corner and live like my great grandparents homesteading?

This is addressed directly in the article:

>And for those who might be quick to point out that there could be a dearth of jobs there, note that when people say “there are no jobs” in a given area, they generally mean that there are no jobs that could produce a normal, upper-middle-class lifestyle there. Which, even in Massena and Ogdensburg isn’t entirely true. But even if it were, the Stewart’s gas stations in both towns are actively hiring part-time cashiers at $17/hr. These places will let you work just one day a week if you like, and seem to be pretty good about flexible hours. In this case, you could work just one ten-hour shift per week, and in so doing, earn more than 30% of what you need to live well at this particular house with just four days of work per month.

The real trade off here is cheap rural land but no ability to ever retire.

Sure, I could live in the middle of goddamn nowhere, grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, etc, etc, etc, but at the end of the day it's never over. I'll be out in my 70s and 80s doing that until I die. Sure, that might be an ideal life for someone, but that someone is not me.

I think it goes beyond that. A city offers a lot more possibilities. If you like plays, museums, going to the movies, being able to find more than three people to play Dungeons and Dragons, or Settlers of Catan with (without driving 1.5 hours) - then being somewhere really rural is going to be unpleasant.

I agree. With no jobs in the area $432 may as well require to work a lot more for lower pay, whatever is available in the area.

I agree with the possibility but many people just end up staying home due to traffic, money, or being an introvert

And when those gas station jobs fill up but there's still empty houses around?

I love the stupid math in this paragraph. One 10hr shift is ~30% of what you need. So multiply that by 3.3 and... oh hey you're working nearly 40hrs a week to afford your impoverished lifestyle in the middle of nowhere. Just like everyone else in this country, only now you get to own a shed. Also you have to take the bus, which runs from 5am-6pm, so you need to beg your boss to not be an opener or closer. Your coworkers will love you for that.

That's true! And many don't!

The thing about places with more jobs is that they also tend to have more job-seekers. The two tend to vary proportional to the population. It's really the ratio of jobs to job-seekers that matters.

Of course, it depends a lot on the job. Some jobs only exist in cities, while others are almost exclusively rural.

All of these articles need to come with an "About the Author" section that describes how the author makes their living. They claim to be living the outlined lifestyle, but I doubt they are working part time at three gas stations.

> One 10hr shift is ~30% of what you need. So multiply that by 3.3 and... oh hey you're working nearly 40hrs a week to afford your impoverished lifestyle in the middle of nowhere.

Are you possibly confusing "per week" with "per month"?

Well yes, it's not a brilliant observation that in the US you are given the option to work at around $15-30k a year ($17/hr part time is going to wind up around there) and use that money to fund an impoverished lifestyle.

"Why aren't more kids embracing a life of poverty? How dare they ask for anything better in a country that produces more wealth than any other?"

I could live in my hometown, rent a studio apartment, have an iPhone and a car, and work at the pizza place like I was 23 again.

Have more amenities, not live in a shack, and sure it would cost 4x more per month but certainly not as decadent as the author claims living in “the city” (read city of 25,000 more than an hour away from anything larger) is.

The type of place being talked about in this article is a place with more houses than people. It's the sort of place that children move away from as they mature because there are few opportunities to build a life there

One 10 hour shift is ~30% of what you need per month

40 hours per month is much less than 40 hours per week

Have you not read the article? The whole point of it is once you get your costs down to this manageable a number, you have a lot more options for "how you're going to support yourself." You could clear $5,000-10,000 a year, which I should remind you would be tax free money simply due to the standard deduction, doing any number of things either local or remote. Ideas I'm just making up:

1. Buy, repair, and flip MacBooks on eBay 2. Do stuff on Fiverr 3. Mow lawns 4. Clean gutters 5. Set up a little stand and sell baked goods or tamales 6. Make YouTube videos or shorts about (insert your nerdy interest) 7. 3D print something and sell it on Etsy

All these things are things I'm sure I could do personally, but don't have time to do because I have to work 40 hours a week to earn enough money to pay for my mortgage in the expensive place I live. But all that goes away when the only thing you need to shoot for is to clear maybe $800 on a good month.

And also, if you have modest savings for a city person you could do with far less earnings, as interest on $200,000 = $10,000.

"impoverished lifestyle"

"live of poverty"

You're really doing a great job exemplifying the attitude which guarantees misery.

The whole point is that living a simple life in the country, with minimal amount of time spent working (thus maximum free time) is arguably a much richer and more fulfilling life than, say, a life where you and your spouse each earn $200,000 working 40-50 hours a week at a Very Important Job that you drive to in your Range Rover and BMW, and getting to spend 1 hour most nights with your family before falling exhausted into bed in a house that cost $2 million, just to wake up and do it again tomorrow.

With a partner, like he mentioned he had, each one could easily be doing a part-time job + some minor side hustle like Etsy, YouTube, etc. The living expenses are about the same for 1 vs 2 other than food, and his food budget was for 2.

What?

First of all, unless you're 18 you should, if you're playing the game correctly, be saving for retirement already, right? That money, which you get to bring with you, will go a lot further in the country.

Plus, Social Security exists, and again, that check will be the same amount regardless of where you live in retirement, so that'll go a lot further there too. The longer you've worked for "city money" already, the bigger your SS check will be.

Even if you wait until you're just before retirement, moving out of the expensive market is one of the best ways to ensure a retirement secure from the worry of having to keep being economically productive till death.

> few opportunities to build a life

for certain values of "a life" of course. The article alludes to our 'great-grandparents' and indeed, we wouldn't be here if the majority of people 100 years ago didn't build "a life" in rural areas without any of the things most of GenZ (and if i'm honest, millennials too) think "a life" requires.

But the word "build" you used is telling. I think you mean "buy a life" -- that's what pursuing only the City Life is doing. In the country you would indeed have to build a life. To figure out what would make you happy and build it, whether that's a club of fellow board game enthusiasts, or a restaurant that you open, or a small chicken farm, etc.

I don't blame the young people, they've only ever been shown a fashionable, extreme-consumption-based narrative of what "a life" should be. Expensive vacations, designer handbags, luxury cars, kitchens bigger than that whole $29,000 house (and that cost $100k for the kitchen alone). That's what we've been told happy people need.

I'm just deeply unconvinced that any of that automatically brings happiness, and I am very convinced that the amount of work it takes to pay for all that is 100% bad for those of us who weren't just born into wealth.

> 3. Mow lawns 4. Clean gutters 5. Set up a little stand and sell baked goods or tamales

Those might pay well in the city, but nobody making $17/hr is going to pay more than $10/hr for lawn mowing.

>1. Buy, repair, and flip MacBooks on eBay

No internet at the house in this scenario, so that's a lot of trips to the library.

>2. Do stuff on Fiverr

See above.

>3. Mow lawns 4. Clean gutters

These are both viable in the summer, provided there is some "landed elite" in the area that makes more than the $17/hr the gas stations pay. I guess you could shovel snow in the winter.

>5. Set up a little stand and sell baked goods or tamales

Doing that legally requires licenses and registration, but good idea. Do the people of upstate New York enjoy tamales?

>6. Make YouTube videos or shorts about (insert your nerdy interest)

The first point again.

>7. 3D print something and sell it on Etsy

The first point again.

> unless you're 18 you should, if you're playing the game correctly, be saving for retirement already, right?

I think you underestimate the financial resources of those who most need to take a route like this. They're not likely to have anything saved and likely have lot of debt, too. Which leads into...

> Social Security exists, and again, that check will be the same amount regardless of where you live in retirement

That is no longer a guarantee, and my retirement planning assumes that it will no longer exist in the near future. I have spent the last 25 years paying for it money I could have saved for retirement instead, and likely won't see a dime in return because the Republicans want it gone. We're realistically looking as a full elimination, means testing to receiveh benefits, massive cuts to benefits, or a work requirement (or some combination of these) all in the name of giving massive tax cuts to the group of people who will never have to work ever again in their lives, and neither will their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

> moving out of the expensive market is one of the best ways to ensure a retirement secure from the worry of having to keep being economically productive till death

Let's constrain ourselves to just the location that the author of the original post suggested. How far away is the nearest hospital if I need treatment for cancer, a heart attack, or a stroke? What are the healthcare opportunities out there? Will friends and family be able to get out there to visit?

The author is so disconnected from reality that its wild that none of this crossed their minds. It just seems like a "those damn millennial and their avocado toast and Macbooks" instead of actually looking into what it means to move out there

The author also commits what to my parents, would be a cardinal sin - suggesting that the next generation have a worse quality of life than their parents, which used to be something that got you disqualified from running for dog catcher in most of this country.

> suggesting that the next generation have a worse quality of life than their parents

To me, it's advocating that "number of dollars you earn per year" and "number of dollars spent on luxuries" is not so simply correlated with "quality of life." That's one aspect, but "number of dollars it takes to satisfy each level of Maslow's pyramid in the place you live" and "number of hours you have to work" and "how stressful is your work" are huge contributors to whether you can be happy (have a good QoL).

Many people work 40-60 hours per week and hate every minute of it, despite earning six figures. Some of those people might be much happier working 5 hours a week and living in the country.

My smartphone plan is $45 (happens to be same company as article suggests, US Mobile) and supports 50GB of tethering which is plenty. This doesn't appreciably change the cost of living but yes, obviously you'd have that as an expense. Who cares? Yes, it would enable like half those work ideas. You could afford it. What's the problem.

> licenses and stuff

What? No, nobody selling tamales outside in the country (or probably the city either) has a formal license to do so. Nobody cares unless they're trying to get you shut down because you're being a jerk (say, selling them right outside their restaurant). Also, what if I told you, you could pick whatever kind of food the people in the area do like, and teach yourself to make it?

That's fine, you don't need them to pay more than $10/hr. You only even need to earn say, $800 a month (I'm assuming you'd want a pickup truck to transport your mower and get around, so padding the $432 a bit) so if you worked 5 hours a week at the gas station for $340 then you need about 11 hours of $10 work per week for another $440 and you're done. If you have any savings, the current interest on $100,000 would alternatively give you $416 so you could just not work at all.

Honestly, this is the weirdest way the author could've written that sentence.

He should've said either "one 10 hour shift per month will make 30% of what you need to live here" or even "one 10 hour shift per week will make more than what you need to live here."

> Some of those people might be much happier working 5 hours a week and living in the country.

Have you ever lived out in the country, grown your own food, made your own clothes, and such? That's so much more work than five hours a week, and at peak times, much more than 40 hours a week for a harder life that you do not get to retire from when you get old.

I think you've arguably left out some interesting options in the middle.

"Just break the law, it'll be fine"

Great financial advice happening on the orangesite.

Really good stuff.

YES! this is the question.

How are we the homes of the largest economies in the world, cities known not just by name but by brand, around the world and: - day care worker can't make enough to move beyond improverished and day care is expensive - teacher can't make enough to move beyond lower middle class and school (even public once you add in all the trips, certs, childcare for non-school days) don't make enough - your burger is $15! but the person making it apparently should live in a wifi-less shed.

Not very long ago at all, this economy was about finding opportunity. Now it seems to be about aiming to reintroduce feudalism.

It doesn't seem to be caused by his lifestyle as the posters above also cant divide by $7 per hour. Its 62 hours or 11 shifts.

I think hé means one should do all kinds of small projects.

>> With no jobs in the area $432 may as well require to work a lot more for lower pay

>> the Stewart’s gas stations in both towns are actively hiring part-time cashiers at $17/hr. These places will let you work just one day a week if you like, and seem to be pretty good about flexible hours

432 / 17 = 25.4 hours a month. A few more hours than that to pay social security, but no income taxes and they would get the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The problem with these lifestyles is that when you have it all finely tuned to live on $400/mo you have no capacity to absorb a $400 water heater expense.

Ironically, I think this is a "blind squirrel finds a nut" situation.

When you're at the absolute bottom, you're not gonna make ends meet by playing by the rule and the enforcers generally leave you alone because you can't get blood from a stone. So for the people living on $400/mo running an unlicensed tamale stand or parting out cars or breeding pitbulls or whatever isn't as risky as it would be for someone making real money.

But yeah, the advice here is generally out of touch.

$17/hr is the rate

Buddy, the entire world is being hollowed out by globalism and a financial race to the bottom vis-a-vis labor costs. Your entire way of life is predicated upon no one invading the country, global supply chains remaining intact and usable, and a lack of war -- as soon as that changes your way of life disappears.

That gas station in the article? Gone once the corporation that owns it deems it a frivolous expense no longer worth the upkeep. Now what are you going to do? Find a job at the diner? Ok, how sustainable is that -- the town is not growing, the economy is dying, and the incomes are stagnating.

The author made his way by hitchhiking and vagabonding after leaving his folks' home. Guess what, surviving like that relies on civilization's infrastructure remaining viable and maintained -- it's leeching off others work and toil to selfishly sustain oneself without giving anything back.

And what about how the author currently sustains himself? Is it by humbly working at the gas station? No, he maintains a substack and social media presence to pay all his bills. He's an entertainer larping as an outbacker. He's an older Christopher McCandless -- developmentally arrested and antisocial.

It's not about fashion or luxury or "buying a life," it's about securing a means of self-sustainability, managing risk, and being a part of the growing world around you -- and not recoiling from it, shutting one's eyes, and pretending everything will be alright (tell that to anyone whose nation transitioned into communism -- hah!).

432/17 is 25 hours, or otherwise stated one 8 hour shift every week or two.

Right, which is why it's extremely confusing that the author wrote:

> In this case, you could work just one ten-hour shift per week, and in so doing, earn more than 30% of what you need to live well at this particular house with just four days of work per month.

What he probably did was write that one shift is more than 30% of what you need, then switched gears to write about four days of work per month, but forgot to remove the 30% number.

This sort of writing has been popular in the US for over 100 years. A historical review of the field (pun intended) can be found in the book Back to the Land, by Dona Brown, University of Wisconsin Press, 2011.

I read that sentence three times. Pretty sure he was trying to hide the ball, but still not sure where he was hiding it or what exactly the ball was, to be honest.

That makes it even more funny. No wonder we cant find a cheap place to live.

$17 x 26 h = €442

One 10 h shift per week is to much apparently.

One wonders why anyone ever left the country to move to the city then. Maybe not everyone wants to live a simple life in the country. Maybe that's considering boring and socially isolating. Maybe some people want more kinds of experiences and even things. Maybe they want a kind of community that's a lot harder to find in the country, or is even discriminated against.

Young people might also recognize that there's a lot more going on in big cities, a whole lot more to do and experience. And attitudes tend to be more excepting of differences. They tend to be more cosmopolitan.

In my experience law enforcement in rural areas generally are squeezing stones for blood, you think the local cops or judge are going to be living on $20,000 a year? No. And where do they get the money? By extorting poor people that live in the area. Oh you literally can't afford their fines? Well then you can spend the next month or two in jail, now having a criminal record, likely losing your job, and when you are released owe the courts and jail a few thousand dollars on top of all that for the mandatory minimum court and jail fees which will cost just as much as the previous fine you couldn't pay and got sent to jail for.

Sure you might get lucky if you keep your head low, but maybe you won't get lucky and you lose the gamble and are put in a WAY worse situation.

I mean we're talking about someone who thinks living on $432 a month with absolutely no government assistance and including housing is a reasonable claim to make. (In the comments, he reveals he goes to Mexico for medical care... I'm really curious how one travels round-trip to Mexico from New York on a $432 a month budget.)