Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    526 points cactusplant7374 | 24 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
    Show context
    xp84 ◴[] No.44077508[source]
    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. Family and friends. If I could take my in-laws and my 2 best friends and their families with me, I'd sign up to move to a rural place like this tomorrow. But it's impractical for nearly everyone in the whole country to make such a thing happen. This limits its appeal. This place is 90 minutes or so from the Montreal airport, which is actually not bad for rural places, but flights are not cheap, certainly not accessible on the budget described here, so for you to have contact with anyone outside this town, they're likely going to have to drop about $500 per person, per visit, and will be staying at the Super 8 since you probably don't have a guest room). So, implied but not acknowledged in this piece is the assumption that you are almost definitely going to only see your family and friends a few more times (maybe once a year each, if you're super lucky) for the rest of your life.

    And unlike questions of money; food, entertainment, family and friends aren't fungible. You can start over and hope to make new friends out there, but you can't replace people. This is what would make this life untenable to me, and I'm not even all that extraverted.

    replies(18): >>44077661 #>>44077836 #>>44077861 #>>44077989 #>>44078076 #>>44078326 #>>44078481 #>>44078497 #>>44078865 #>>44079089 #>>44079776 #>>44081693 #>>44081796 #>>44082021 #>>44082114 #>>44086836 #>>44093839 #>>44110159 #
    1. cjbarber ◴[] No.44077861[source]
    The network effects/moats of places! There needs to be a Kickstarter for coordinating groups of people to move to the same place all at the same time.
    replies(6): >>44077883 #>>44078130 #>>44078981 #>>44079613 #>>44079634 #>>44079745 #
    2. RajT88 ◴[] No.44077883[source]
    Good luck getting people to agree not to compete for the best cheap houses.
    replies(1): >>44078902 #
    3. pyuser583 ◴[] No.44078130[source]
    Then the value of the place would go up fast.

    This is one way gentrification happens.

    replies(2): >>44078334 #>>44079808 #
    4. jefftk ◴[] No.44078334[source]
    That seems to be pretty good for the group of newcomers! They all buy together at lowish prices, then prices go up enough that they ~make their money back on housing appreciation. And it's not bad for existing homeowners either, since they get the appreciation too.
    replies(4): >>44078446 #>>44078761 #>>44081481 #>>44084236 #
    5. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44078446{3}[source]
    Is someone Penny pinching $400/month really going to have the funds necessary to flip housing?
    replies(1): >>44082550 #
    6. kiba ◴[] No.44078761{3}[source]
    Or you could just invest the difference in your stock portfolio and institute a land value tax instead. Stock are more a lot more liquid than real estate and less risky as well. Whereas the value of a home is pretty much stuck in the property until you convert it to liquid cash by selling it, but then you need to move elsewhere.
    replies(1): >>44078975 #
    7. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.44078902[source]
    doesn't seems to be a problem currently.
    8. renewiltord ◴[] No.44078975{4}[source]
    Indeed you could either go through the arduous task of convincing your friends to move somewhere with you or just get enough political support for a land value tax instead. No brainer to go for the tax. Way easier to achieve.
    replies(1): >>44080124 #
    9. renewiltord ◴[] No.44078981[source]
    It was pretty easy for me. We got enough friends to move to one neighborhood of SF. Once you get a few, the numbers start going up and the gravity of the network draws more.
    replies(1): >>44079840 #
    10. ludicrousdispla ◴[] No.44079613[source]
    Seems like you could call it Cultstarter
    11. herbst ◴[] No.44079634[source]
    Organized gentrification. Nice
    12. flicken ◴[] No.44079745[source]
    The Free State Project[1] had 20k libertarians pledge to move to New Hampshire, talking 15 years to reach the total number.

    [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project

    replies(2): >>44080189 #>>44081067 #
    13. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.44079808[source]
    I'm sure there's a way to have more than 20 but less than 2000 people move to the same general area.

    Also if your primary goal is a cheap lifestyle, you're much less likely to gentrify anything.

    14. JCharante ◴[] No.44079840[source]
    that's what pieter levels did in portugal
    15. HPsquared ◴[] No.44080124{5}[source]
    Ah, path dependence.
    16. littlestymaar ◴[] No.44080189[source]
    Only to fail to address the problem of bears because it requires the kind of public action that libertarians rejects for religious reasons.
    replies(1): >>44080839 #
    17. os2warpman ◴[] No.44080839{3}[source]
    A libertarian solving a problem is like me performing brain surgery.

    They ain't got no clue, and will almost certainly make things worse.

    18. m0llusk ◴[] No.44081067[source]
    This has turned out to be a really interesting failure. To point out just one aspect, back in the 1970s there were hints that New Hampshire was leaning toward legalization of cannabis. Libertarian party meetups often focused on legalization of cannabis. This trend seemed to be solid and strongly linked to Libertarian influence in the state.

    Then the Free State Project happened and the intense liberty seeking of the Libertarian party kept everyone occupied with arguments about bears and taxation. Meanwhile the rest of New England legalized cannabis while New Hampshire remained in a strange state of suspension. The influence of Libertarians has been so chaotic and unpredictable that what was considered the most likely result of Libertarian influence now seems completely out of reach.

    This powerfully demonstrates how seemingly minor or irrelevant factors like political networks, tone, and tempo can end up being as important as core political issues and their direct consequences. Metaphors like piloting the ship of state through stormy waters take on additional meaning in this context.

    replies(1): >>44081337 #
    19. amluto ◴[] No.44081337{3}[source]
    Forget cannabis. I always found it hilarious that NH is supposedly libertarian but bans privately run businesses from selling bottles of alcohol.
    replies(1): >>44083851 #
    20. diggan ◴[] No.44081481{3}[source]
    > And it's not bad for existing homeowners either, since they get the appreciation too.

    Assuming everyone is only out after appreciating house prices. While the locals who lived there before you might like that the house gains in value, depending on how large the group is and what the culture is, they might not like it at all. There is a reason some rural people continue living in rural areas, and bringing parts of the city to them might not be ideal for those people.

    21. pyuser583 ◴[] No.44082550{4}[source]
    Some penny pinching so they can flip houses would.
    22. hiatus ◴[] No.44083851{4}[source]
    I found it surprising that they allow at least one private sale license. https://web.archive.org/web/20171028042531/http://info.nhpr....
    replies(1): >>44085516 #
    23. thatguy0900 ◴[] No.44084236{3}[source]
    Exactly what rural people want, enough city people all moving in at once to noticably change the local culture(their whole goal) and also price the locals out of their own city
    24. amluto ◴[] No.44085516{5}[source]
    It seems like Massachusetts should consider a low tax zone within 10 or so miles of the NH border. Why let NH capture all the revenue from MA residents?