How to live on $432 a month in America

I flagged this article and later saw it dead, so I’m quite surprised it came back. I found the content extremely shallow and lacking nuance. Others have mentioned, but it leaves out huge caveats because it would destroy the the conclusion - the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc. The list of obvious hurdles that immediately disqualify most people is a glaring omission and I really don’t understand why this article garnered upvotes aside from affirming confirmation bias. This is the first time I’ve been greatly soured by the response from the HN community. What substance are people finding in this article?

> the cost of moving to the place in the first place, social connections, health (even worse for those with disabilities), emergency services, retirement, etc etc

Anyone moving to bay area for a higher income job would have most of these issues.

A forum full of people willing to migrate for better income and lifestyle should not be criticizing "cost of moving", "social connections", "health disabilities" and "retirement".

I might be misreading your reply, but what you’re keying in on and singling out is a tiny fraction of the audience the article is arguing for. My problem is with how shallow this article is and how it throws a wide net that doesn’t cover a ton of situations that prevent people from doing what he claims is possible for just about anyone if they change their mindset. If the argument were just for the subset of users you’re using as an example, then sure? But that’s isn’t as clickbaity and certainly doesn’t support the claim that any young person can just up and do what the writer claims.

Thank you for posting your reasons for flagging it! I'm on the exact opposite side. I thought it was a decent article, flawed but worthy of discussion. I was surprised to see it flagged dead, so I vouched for it. When this didn't bring it back alive, I emailed Dan to see if he could resuscitate it. He said that it was already alive due to enough other people having vouched for it.

Your criticisms are all reasonable, but they are exactly the sort of things I'd hope to see discussed in the comments. And they are! I think the article is a good starting point for a discussion on what's possible. I'm nowhere near as extreme as the author of the piece, but I live a life much closer to what he describes than most people here.

Rather than being soured by the response, I'm glad to see both the pros and the cons being discussed. Yes, there are lots of ethical issues about living the way he suggests. There are lots of things you'll be doing without. But there are also lots of upsides about living in a way that you have time to do things besides just work and sleep. Which parts of the response did you find souring?