←back to thread

How to live on $432 a month in America

(shagbark.substack.com)
526 points cactusplant7374 | 3 comments | 23 May 25 16:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
xeromal ◴[23 May 25 17:10 UTC] No.44074588[source]▶
I've often felt this way about some of today's complaints. I grew up in area like what was mentioned in this article and I long for the day I can go back there. I would in a heartbeat if my partner shared the same mentality as me.

I don't really see a point in living a big city with the remote job I have and that many others have if I can live in a smaller area that still has humans but much cheaper way of living. Everyone claims it's about living in a city with available services but I see those same people decry how much the food costs and also that they have no friends and can't find someone to date. My thoughts aren't as articulate as I'd like them to be but I guess I'm ultimately trying to say is if I'm going to be miserable, why not do it on my own land for a lot cheaper.

replies(9): >>44075163 #>>44075351 #>>44075419 #>>44075646 #>>44076534 #>>44076640 #>>44077488 #>>44077540 #>>44081166 #
bluefirebrand ◴[23 May 25 18:44 UTC] No.44075351[source]▶
> 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?

replies(5): >>44075466 #>>44075478 #>>44075523 #>>44075614 #>>44075792 #
aaronbaugher ◴[23 May 25 19:26 UTC] No.44075792[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44075898 #
bluefirebrand ◴[23 May 25 19:38 UTC] No.44075898[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>44076495 #
1. xp84 ◴[23 May 25 20:50 UTC] No.44076495[source]▶
> 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.

replies(2): >>44077110 #>>44078809 #
2. financltravsty ◴[23 May 25 22:15 UTC] No.44077110[source]▶
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!).

3. goatlover ◴[24 May 25 04:35 UTC] No.44078809[source]▶
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.