Most active commenters
  • johnnyanmac(4)

←back to thread

526 points cactusplant7374 | 12 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 #
jvanderbot ◴[] No.44077661[source]
Any discussion of staying near family and friends on a forum predominated by startups out of the bay area is completely disingenuous.

But that aside, I suggest this is front page and meaningful not because it brings up a third option (to stay home, move to a city, or move to rural NY), but instead because it advocates accidentally for just staying home. Your family probably already lives in an area that is more affordable than SF/NYC/Paris, and they are there waiting. It's entertaining as an extreme data point but motivating for other reasons

This article is most interesting to me because I tried moving to the big city to be a big shot techie, and have been substantially happier living outside a major city in Minnesota.

Absolutely nobody that I knew in those cities lived near their family, absolutely all of them moved away to chase fortune and fame.

replies(6): >>44077721 #>>44077723 #>>44078469 #>>44078507 #>>44078784 #>>44079352 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44078469[source]
Not everyone has a home to go to. Broken families, dead families, there may no longer be room at a home, etc. Everyone's circumstances are different.

And honestly, based on some cultures, home isn't free either. The moment I got back home, I was given a few months to find work, but had to pay rent in 3 months no matter what. I was doing temp work for one month while interviews finished

replies(2): >>44078591 #>>44078641 #
2. geodel ◴[] No.44078591[source]
Good point. IME it is quite common all over the world for grownups to chip in towards family expense if they are staying more than a few weeks back home. If not cash it could be some other way.
3. bruce511 ◴[] No.44078641[source]
Of course you are right, not everyone has the option to move back in either their parents, and of course that option (when available) is often not rent free (nor should it be.)

However I don't think that's what the parent poster meant. I think he meant "home" is the "home town" sense.

There's a perception that young people (for probably 60 years now) see "getting out of this town" as a major life goal. Small towns find it hard to hold on to folk in their 20s as they head off into the world seeking the excitement of a bigger city, industry location, or indeed just the option of choosing from a list of more than 2 places to eat.

The parent poster is suggesting that after experiencing that, and discovering the negatives (high housing cost being one), if you have a job which can be done remotely, then Starlink allows you to do that from your home town.

Of course this is a viable option for some, and likely not for most.

replies(2): >>44079041 #>>44079748 #
4. TacticalCoder ◴[] No.44079041[source]
There are many parents who allow their kids to live rent free. First job can then DCA the near entire salary and what you save early on compounds like crazy for life.

Parents telling kids in this world to "go work 24/7 on the treadmill without being able to save" should wonder if having kids wasn't something selfish they did like having a pet.

I was always welcome at my mother's home and she told me there would always be shelter and food for me, whenever I'd come.

The selfish people who kick their kids out of their home at 18 y/o are people best let out of my life.

If a kid is working, I see no reason why parents shouldn't let them

replies(1): >>44079771 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44079748[source]
>There's a perception that young people (for probably 60 years now) see "getting out of this town" as a major life goal.

It sort of is. Opportunities in the small towns is limited compared to urban areas. As well as other social aspects like night life, entertainment, the culture of the residents, etc. The people argument of being irreplaceable works both ways; you're simply going to get more options when you're around more people.

> if you have a job which can be done remotely, then Starlink allows you to do that from your home town.

Perhaps. Both Starlink and jobs in general really don't want us to have such options, as seen in the last few years of layoffs and crashouts. Add in the cable monopolies and you see how WFH really isn't stable right now without a good connection.

replies(1): >>44080161 #
6. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44079771{3}[source]
>Parents telling kids in this world to "go work 24/7 on the treadmill without being able to save" should wonder if having kids wasn't something selfish they did like having a pet.

Like I said, it's cultural. Some parents literally need extra income just to keep the roof over their heads, and having an adult dependent at home is still an expense. . Some parents simply don't want to facilitate a full on NEET lifestyle and want to encourage a proper work ethic.

I agree that a kid won't just figure everything out the moment they turn 18, but I can empathize with a child also needed to leave their nest one day. Uniersity was the perfect environment for that transition, but we decided to cut funding for decades and move the costs to the 18YO's with no financial sense. A "party school" just doesn't make sense anymmore so if we don't treat it as a vocational school, you may as well have saved money and let them be a NEET for 4 years.

replies(1): >>44080172 #
7. HPsquared ◴[] No.44080161{3}[source]
Does anyone actually like nightlife though? Same for local entertainments, sure they're a nice extra sometimes but nothing worth sacrificing for.

It's all some variation of "crowded into a dark room with hundreds of strangers with deafening music, can't see anything, can't hear anything".

replies(3): >>44080746 #>>44080814 #>>44085442 #
8. bruce511 ◴[] No.44080172{4}[source]
I've no objection to my kids living at home, and there'll always be a place for them here.

I charge them rent though - 33% of their gross pay. Not cause I need the money but because it allows them to afford to move out one day. In other words their lifestyle has "rent" built into it.

In other words I'm happy to offer a backstop. I'm less happy for them to simply ignore "becoming self sufficient adults" just because it's cheaper to live at home.

replies(1): >>44080282 #
9. HPsquared ◴[] No.44080282{5}[source]
How about the "rent" going into a savings pot which they can use for a downpayment or otherwise reclaim (maybe partially) when they move out?
10. fnimick ◴[] No.44080746{4}[source]
"nobody wants to go there anymore, it's too crowded"
11. ◴[] No.44080814{4}[source]
12. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.44085442{4}[source]
Nightlife isn't limited to the traditional "fun party" activities. As some examples, I love going to various tech Meetups, but it being a 20 mile drive does mean I sometimes miss some of them compared to if I actually lived downtown.

Whether thars worth wanting to move closer is a personal opinion. But a notable one in my eyes.