←back to thread

526 points cactusplant7374 | 10 comments | | HN request time: 1.256s | 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 #
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 #
1. pyuser583 ◴[] No.44078130[source]
Then the value of the place would go up fast.

This is one way gentrification happens.

replies(2): >>44078334 #>>44079808 #
2. 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 #
3. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44078446[source]
Is someone Penny pinching $400/month really going to have the funds necessary to flip housing?
replies(1): >>44082550 #
4. kiba ◴[] No.44078761[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 #
5. renewiltord ◴[] No.44078975{3}[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 #
6. 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.

7. HPsquared ◴[] No.44080124{4}[source]
Ah, path dependence.
8. diggan ◴[] No.44081481[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.

9. pyuser583 ◴[] No.44082550{3}[source]
Some penny pinching so they can flip houses would.
10. thatguy0900 ◴[] No.44084236[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