←back to thread

526 points cactusplant7374 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
nobodywillobsrv ◴[] No.44078076[source]
To be fair, leaving everyone behind and not seeing them again was kind of what people did in the great grandfather era mentioned in the article. Even not that long ago. I was talking to someone only perhaps grandma age the other day who said their brother's family moved to BC and they didn't see them for 25 years.

Your comment does focus in on the interesting point in that connected places have perhaps not scaled as well. Or perhaps there is some pareto front of locations on cost vs connectedness we need to imagine in our heads. Very interesting.

replies(3): >>44078093 #>>44079138 #>>44080971 #
hshdhdhj4444 ◴[] No.44078093[source]
> what people did in the great grandfather era

Unfortunately the appeal to ancestry fallacy is always a terrible idea.

You see this in the nutrition space where “influencers” go on and on about how our ancestors ate, forgetting that our ancestors died extremely early relative to modern humans.

Similarly, our grandparents lived pretty terrible lives in many ways.

The reason to complain about the high cost of living is that the U.S. has an incredibly high GDP and yet Americans live highly precarious lives, not that in certain very specific ways our ancestors had it slightly better, which as you point out leads to all sorts of issues.

replies(7): >>44078146 #>>44078251 #>>44078412 #>>44080320 #>>44081249 #>>44081261 #>>44081382 #
nazgulnarsil ◴[] No.44078251[source]
>our ancestors died extremely early

No they didn't, stop using averages.

replies(1): >>44079813 #
karafso ◴[] No.44079813[source]
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit...

Childhood mortality is only one factor, and I think at this point we're all aware that the "life expectancy was 40 years" statistic has a huge asterisk next to it. But yes, our ancestors really did die much, much younger than us.

replies(2): >>44079872 #>>44081408 #
1. antonvs ◴[] No.44081408[source]
You're still focusing on averages, which is the error inherent in the myth.

While it's true that average life expectancy has increased, the point is that it was absolutely routine for people to live into their 60s, and not uncommon for them to live into their 70s or 80s.

See e.g. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/

replies(1): >>44082346 #
2. eloisant ◴[] No.44082346[source]
The average still means something. Yes a lot of people were living to 60s, 70s or 80s, but way more people than today were dying at a younger age because of a disease that can now be cured, hygiene not as good, etc.