> “I don’t believe in houses or mortgages. Who in their right mind would spend their lifetime paying for a building they never get to spend time in because they are always working?”
> The intentional poor are “looking for something real that goes beyond commodity,” said Karen Halnon, a sociology professor at Pennsylvania State University and author of "Consumption of Inequality."
See, the historical edition of "something real" and the mainstream reason to pay for the house is called "your children". I don't expect many of these people are raising any, so there you go.
Exactly. I bought a house right after my first kid was born (second on the way) and I would not trade it for anything else. Yes I am paying the mortgage+ taxes and what not but I know that my kids are getting the environment we want as a family to grow up. Yes you can always argue that kids can be raised in rented apartments, condos etc. but to each his own. I recently painted one of the rooms for the kid and loved doing it. Imagine dealing with landlords asking for permission to put a nail on the wall. Many more things like this.
tl;dr: People buy houses not because they see it as investment in terms of money (well thats also there to an extent but besides the point in this context), they buy it to call it their home where they have the freedom to do whatever the heck they want.
"Imagine dealing with landlords asking for permission to put a nail on the wall."
LOL back in the real world, it never costs a penny over the security deposit.
Usually people who cry the loudest about home=freedom live in a HOA where you need to ask the Warden's permission to plant flowers, which I always find pretty amusing. Thank god I'm free of that landlord, although now the HOA controls my every decision and waking moment...
In my younger years I found that you tend to get what you optimize for WRT real estate. So if you optimize solely for location size and price, all you get is a good location size and price. The landlord will probably be a total jerk or insane. My bachelor pad was not the most convenient and relatively small and somewhat expensive but the landlord was awesome and reasonable and fast and effective. "permitted" to paint? Heck, he not only permitted it, he paid for it. You tend to get what you optimize for.
"back in the real world, it never costs a penny over the security deposit."
Funny you say that. I have had many landlords in the past when I was renting and at least 2 of them were shady and tried to take a portion out of my deposit with false claims that I did something wrong. One specific case, the landlord claimed that renters are supposed to pay for carpet cleaning when leaving. We had nothing of that in the contract. I pointed it out and her response "thats the state law" and she forwarded me a PDF of the state law for landlord/tenants. Guess what, I actually found a section in that same PDF that clearly said that tenants are not responsible for usual wear and tear cleaning unless agreed in the contract.
Overall, I think you are missing the point of why to own vs rent. I would rather deal with an HOA than a scheming landlord.
Why? You get what you optimize for. Sometimes it doesn't work, but usually it does. Also in the olden days a landlord might have gotten away with bait and switch, but it seems unlikely it'll happen now.
Also given crooks, why risk more financial assets than necessary; I don't get the desire to deal with a HOA over a landlord. I don't trust that homeless person with $5, so I'll hand my wallet to that panhandler instead; what could possibly go wrong?
Somehow you have convinced yourself that everybody has to deal with an HOA (and that all of them are nightmares). I own two houses and neither have an HOA. When I was house shopping a couple years ago, I think maybe 1 in 5 that we looked at had an HOA.
I don't live in a HOA either, intentionally.
The ratio of free vs nonfree housing varies greatly by geography and date of construction. In some markets almost all SFRs are nonfree and in others almost all SFRs are free.
However, none of the above discussion about local real estate variations and trends conflicts with or relates to the observation that those who complain the most about landlords statistically seem to live as a subject of a HOA or in a condo.
Also some zoning and CCR regs are almost as bad as a HOA. And some HOA are not too bad. Most of them, on the other hand...
Zoning regulations are going to equally effect everybody so that is kind of a moot point in this context. Unless you live in a historic neighborhood (where often nearly every aspect of your historic house is regulated), an HOA has no authority on what you do in the inside of your house. So when renting, you have almost no freedom to alter any aspect of your dwelling (unless otherwise allowed by your landlord). Owning a home with an HOA, you have complete freedom to alter the interior any way you like and have some (varied) level of restriction on the exterior. Owning a home without an HOA, you have complete freedom in and out. Plus there is the issue of pets being allowed or not in rentals. So, I don't see any conflict with a person with an HOA complaining about landlords. Even with an HOA, you are statistically more free to do stuff than with a landlord.
As someone forced to rent with kids for the past several years (apparently contracting isn't a real job to banks), you got it exactly right. Floating around, without a defined base is really difficult and affects you more than you realize.
Though you have to pay for upkeep on a house (and HOA/insurance/taxes) renting brings it's own issues (fees,deposits,moving expenses) and, in our area, rents are about 30-50% higher than a mortgage for a comparable house in a comparable neighborhood. Not to mention, the nice, stable neighborhoods don't have much rental action around here.
"rents are about 30-50% higher than a mortgage for a comparable house in a comparable neighborhood."
That's HIGHLY unusual and perhaps a very local phenomena. If accurate, you should buy a house, for cash perhaps, and rent it out to get phenomenal returns. Perhaps you're not accounting for insurance, or prop tax, or utilities as part of the rent or something.
Usually, arbitrage sets in, and in the long run, renting money from the bank ends up costing about as much as renting land from an owner.
Franklin or certain (well lots of areas) of Nashville just don't have many available rentals (worth a damn). I had lots of trouble finding anything around $1/sqft/month to rent but buying is around $.5-.75/sqft/month. There's also several private colleges in Nashville so that may contribute to higher rental demand as well.
Now, I didn't do a full ROI on it since I'm not coming from an investment only perspective and there are certainly other factors but I am including taxes and insurance.
You are most certainly correct that buying a house for cash would make sense, but if that seems like a truly viable option for a younger family then you have lost touch with reality in a big way.
Rent's like that don't seem highly unusual either, there's a large swath of people who cannot qualify at the moment but have plenty of monthly cash flow so they are driving rents up. If investors see this and buy in desirable areas, well, that reduces supply as well...
Let's say you can buy a house and pay $1,500/month (all inclusive). As an investor, you've got to factor in maintenance (say $200 a month to account for large ones and if you have the tenants do the lawn care) and, most likely, a 6-8% property management fee (unless you're a big time investor or you treat it like it's your job). So, now you need close to $1,800-850 just to break even, let alone make a profit.
Rent is already 17-20% higher than buying and the investor still needs a profit, depending on the area and demand that can be pretty steep but should be at least 12-15%, so there you go.
EDIT: I should also note that TN is known for it's low COL, I can't imagine this situation gets too much better in more populated areas.
"You are most certainly correct that buying a house for cash would make sense, but if that seems like a truly viable option for a younger family then you have lost touch with reality in a big way."
Well, yes, my point is not that you would do it, but someone "must" see it an do it. Its like the old joke about getting an economists attention and pointing to a $20 bill laying on the floor, and the economist refusing to pick up the $20, saying, "thats impossible, by the efficient market hypothesis $20 bills can't be laying on the floor ready to be picked up by anyone."
If my house maint only cost $200/month long term I'd be pretty happy. Or it would have collapsed around me as I live here. The killer isn't so much the multi $1K class expenses like roofs and HVAC, but the $750 appliances, theres so darn many, all value engineered to fail in five years, and the uncountable $100 trips to home depot.
Washer, dryer, dishwasher, stove, oven, water heater. That is six major appliances. Your model suggests that they are worth $750 a piece, which is reasonable. 6 * $750 = $4,500 to replace all of them. $4,500 / (5 * 12) = $75/month to replace every single one of those every 5 years. So, that leaves $125/month for all other maintenance. In the six months since purchasing my house, I have spent a grand total of $325 at Home Depot. Of which, $200 was for luxury nice-to-haves (a fancy towel bar, a fan upgrade, and a TV mount). I do not know what other homeowners spend, but that is my domestic burn rate. Consider that the value of my home has increased about $10,000 in those six months, and renters pay my mortgage, I think I am ahead of the game.
FWIW it's generally a time-value/location thing. The longer you own, the more sense owning makes. (This is obvious where there's no longer a mortgage and the only costs are taxes and upkeep.)
Zillow did a neat post on this, including city guidelines and maps:
I own a 4 bedroom home in Tempe, AZ whose mortgage is $1,084/month. I put 5% down. This property could very easily rent for $1,500-$1,600 + utilities. Granted, its proximity to Arizona State University puts it in a different rental category altogether. If you have the means, buying a house and renting the spare rooms like I do can means you can potentially live completely rent free (each of my rooms goes for $425+utilities).
There are a lot of places that after so many foreclosures, people have to rent and that increases demand/prices of renting. I know of many places where it is equivalent or cheaper to pay a mortgage than it is to rent. Right now the biggest thing for my husband and I (no kids) is the downpayment for a house.
Perhaps there's something peculiar to where you live, but I've never felt I needed to buy a house, and I have kids and pets, and I'm not shy about putting nails in the walls either.
Do car leases work that way in the .uk, like if the car mfgr decides to sell the car out from underneath you even if you're up to date on payments they just send the repo guy out to take it without warning?
> See, the historical edition of "something real" and the mainstream reason to pay for the house is called "your children".
Your children need you way more than a pretty room. If saving on accommodation lets you spend less hours in the office and more hours with them, they will be happier for sure. The amount of space paid for and wasted in average houses is mind-blowing.
Pay for what you use, not what you think you need. That's the gist of the article.
You have to remember that for dudes(still typically willing to work more), are not finding those relationships attractive, especially when they're in a tight spot.
They're trapped between welfare and work, and the group is growing; do you think these people care about mainstream motivations or even peer pressure?
The future says there is a backlog of overvalued houses for the next 3-5 years. A house can be a good investment, but it becomes a bad investment if you are caught when the bubble bursts.
A real estate bubble burst, which we already went through just recently, doesn't affect current homeowners. It only affects those who need to sell at that moment and have been a homeowner for a short while.
I am betting my home will be worth well more than it's worth right now in 3 to 5 years. But, I'm in a coastal city where homes are always in demand.
I grew up in a coastal city (Miami) and watched prices climb 100k, then bolted to 500k-600k before settling back into 100k-200k again. Houses were always in demand but prices were constrained by average salary (35k avg) until investors got involved and banks took the constraints off mortgage requirements.
I watched a friend put her college graduation money as down payment on a 4 bedroom house and struggle (she couldn't afford to go out, couldn't even afford to eat meat) for a few years all in the vain belief that it was an investment. She aged about 10 years in that period time.
Why are children the reason to buy instead of rent? My parents were renting till I was around 13. Then they bought a house. Years later they sold it and moved to a different one (they bought that one too). It never made a difference to me.
In theory they get a big load to buy a house, and pay it off over their lifetime, and about when they finish work or soon after they die, leaving you the house. You either move in or sell it, giving you a lump sum.
Or they don't die, but need expensive medical care. Being able to sell the house to pay those bills is handy.
Kids cause damage. They spill on carpets and draw on walls. My biggest reason for me personally, be able to take down walls, paint, dig holes, build XYZ without asking landlords permission.
It's often useful to have someone exploring extremes. Philosophical extremes, lifestyle extremes, physical, etc. For example, I think reading Ayn Rand is useful even though I disagree with here on many points.
I think many people feel like much of our modern wealth is "wealth." Long hours at Jobs we don't like. No free time. Dept. Constant financial worries. Social alienation.
Hopefully they find some useful things that other people can use.
The article makes no mention things like health insurance and other safety nets. What will he do when he grows too old to be autonomous?
I'm all for the idea of going back to basics, advanced stages of anything usually comes with a lot of negative baggage, our western society included.
However, living "intentionally poor" means you're distancing yourself from everything, you're essentially back to the Middle Ages, and your quality of life depends solely on your genetics and luck in life. He breaks his foot, and suddenly he has to come crawling back to the "system" he once was a slave of. A system he no longer deserves to be a part of because he's stopped contributing to it.
I'm not sure that living "intentionally poor" means anything in particular. The article gives two example: a guy in a hobbit hole and a girl in a cheap NY room. Both are using macs and making a little money online. Doesn't sound medieval to me.
Anyway, the article isn't about a "mid sized country" deciding to live in a hobbit hole. It's about a few individuals. They're trying to find a satisfying way of living. This anger about not contributing to the system feels very off to me.
I'm writing from the UK, where living on the road is hard due to legals and climate. But if I lived in a high rent area of the US, I'd definitely look into getting a nice RV.
In a city, this would at first seem impractical. But if you cut back to a much smaller vehicle, there is generally safe free parking to be found at night. Especially if your friend has an apartment, but doesn't use the parking. Gym membership for showers, kitchen at work, maybe a games room. You really only need a box to live in most days.
This would let you pull in high wages, living low and gathering savings, then retire to the country to bootstrap your amazing SaaS business.
Oh fantasy.
Back in reality, I currently rent a bedroom from a fairly rich family. Especially during the winter, I save a huge amount on bills. The only problem is the lack of private space, but temporarily that's fine.
Hey shubb, I've read your posts for a while; like the way you think. Let me buy you a pint next time I'm in London (in US right now, but there often enough). Thoughtful tech people in London good to find.
an email that I made:
specialemailforthisrightnow@gmail.com
It's easier to do if you're willing to live without a car and health insurance.
I keep good track of what I spend, and live pretty frugally, so here's some info on "what's possible" (assuming a single person living in the midwest US).
I eat for ~$90 a month (oatmeal, fruit, beans and rice, peanut butter and jelly, spaghetti, chicken once a week, ground beef once a week).
I pay:
-$200/month for rent and utilities (live in a house with 4 others guys in midwest collegetown). And it's a decent sized place with cable internet, so you could probably get cheaper (though likely not on the east or west coast).
-$30/month for cell phone plan.
-Computer was homebuilt from parts and is 4 years old.
-$200/year for clothes/toiletries.
That comes to about $11 a day.
Now, my expenses or higher because I opt to have health insurance, a car, travel, and go out every now and then.
It's the health insurance, living in high cost-of-living places, car, going out, and travel that makes your goal difficult.
What do you do for fun? Are you active in the dating pool? How often do you socialise in situations that require spend? (Be that a trip to the cinema, or a coffeshop, or a bar or taking beer/wine to a BBQ.)
As an aside, why I know this type of lifestyle is not for me and why I find it so alien...
>> Are you active in the dating pool? How often do you socialise in situations that require spend?
Chances are he would find a date who has similar interests - and there are lots of free things to do, walks, parks, bike rides, picnics (grab something from the dumpster at Subway before you leave)
i've heard of dumpster diving, but honestly i always assumed that was either intended as a joke, or only homeless bums do it. i can't imagine eating out of a dumpster if you have ANY option at all not to. i mean, the smell alone...
Its apparent you've never tried it. Its a fascinating thing to leap into the trash to see what you can find. There is generally an odor, but you aren't there for things that stink anyway. Any bag that stinks you ignore. I used to look for likely working electronics, good looking/fixable furniture, and rarely, still sealed food. Some folk go further and will pull loose fruit/veg out. If you leave any rot behind and wash the food, you should be fine. You never pull cheese/meat out of a dumpster, however. Too risky.
People are very wasteful. Just because something goes into the trash doesn't mean its without utility. It just means someone decided it didn't have any utility for them. Many perfectly fine things go into the trash everyday. Letting them rot in a landfill instead of being recycled seems way more distasteful than a smell that will wash right off.
If you are going to try it, the first rule of dumpster diving is to leave the site in better shape than when you found it. If you make a mess, you clean it up. Its the decent thing to do, and helps keeps the neighbors calm. Its an oddly invasive act, as peoples trash is basically a story of their life, so anything that soothes people about you going into a dumpster is good.
Personally, I did it largely for the sense of adventure. Its like a modern day treasure hunt. The fact that I was able to furnish my apartment very richly for nothing was a bonus.
My understanding is that dumpster diving to get opened food is fairly uncommon. More often it is getting sealed food that was thrown out because it has expired, has damaged packaging, or in some other way is less desirable. So the food that you would eat from a dumpster isn't exposed and probably doesn't smell like a restaurant waste dumpster would.
Pretty much. I spent last year saving for a car and my monthly expenses came to about 6-700 but I live in Austin so ~450 went to rent/utilities/phone plus ~70 for gas/insurance for the car I was borrowing.
Once you've got housing/transportation knocked out to your satisfaction 400 a month is pretty much living like a god damn king.
$30/month for cell phone? If you go pre-paid with a provider like ptel, you can easily spend less than that if you're not using too much data or using too many minutes.
As far as maintaing cars on a budget goes, I feel I could offer some pointers.
Going by the "$5000" figure I guess I spent about "$2/day per car." (My yearly maintenance costs are about $1,000 on years when I'm buying fresh rubber or doing large jobs. Significantly less than that on years that only require servicing consumables like brakes and fluids.)
0) Find a reliable car. This seems like a no brainer, but honestly some cars are just _built like tanks._
This is the toughest part as you'll end up spending more money since these cars naturally hold their resale value a bit better.
Find something like an older Toyota with an S engine [Camry], or perhaps a Volvo, etc.
My rule of thumb? If you don't get search results for "[Car in question] + 300,000 miles" -- you're about to buy the wrong car!
My Mustang has 300,000mi+ on the clock, my old minivan had 240,000, and it's not hard to imagine my Camry making it to 300,000mi
if I continue to maintain it.
1) Find an honest mechanic that's _willing to install customer supplied parts._
Sadly: all shops will charge [what I consider] an outrageous markup on parts. This is usually to "subsidize" whatever warranty
they offer on their work.
So be aware that you're effectively making a bet that the part you're buying isn't a dud. Otherwise you're going to find out
why they charge such a ridiculous markup. (Hint: the shop won't make you wait 2 weeks while their parts supplier processes the RMA. --
They swap in a brand new part in 24 hours, and hope that the RMA goes through.)
2) Perform certain maintenance yourself. Here's how I see it.
* You should be able to: rotate your tires, change your own oil, change air & cabin air filters, check the levels of all other fluids.
* It's nice if you can: top off & change other fluids, replace belts, change spark plugs & wires, replace a distributor cap or similar component. (Only applies to older vehicles with a cap or external ignition control module driving the ignition coils. On modern vehicles you'll have coil-on-plug fired directly from the ECU.)
* You're doing _really well_ if you can: change your own brakes [pads, rotors, drums, and shoes], swap out components on the accessory belt (anything pulley driven, like your pumps, alternator, etc.), replace _any_ suspension or steering components.
Unless something goes _wrong_, nothing above really requires any specialty tooling. Air tooling is nice, but honestly I've gotten by for years with nothing but an electric impact wrench [for removing & installing wheels]... everything else can be done with a good set of wrenches, a breaker bar, and a dash of blood and tears.
(As a precaution: the last category involves some _very dangerous jobs._ -- Improper installation of brakes will at best render your vehicle immobile, at worst it will endanger the safety of yourself and others on the road.
As for suspension: those springs support a significant amount of weight. They are _incredibly dangerous_ if not handled properly.)
---
To elaborate a bit on point #1 we will use a fairly recent example.
I had a timing belt installed: I purchased the components [the belt, idler pulleys, water pump, various gaskets] myself for $90.
These components have a 5-year/50,000 mi warranty on the parts themselves.
(The shop offered a 2 year / 12,000 mi. warranty for comparison.)
The labor comes to $375 because I have a mechanic that will install customer supplied parts. Total I spent: $465 for a job that costs $600-$800 in my area.
If you want to know where the extra money comes from: let's look at the parts I _didn't supply._
I needed a thermostat & gasket, a power steering belt, an a serpentine belt. The thermostat and gasket were $25, the belts were $40 a piece, for a total of $105. I could've bought my own thermostat and gasket for $12, and I could've gotten _the same exact belts_ for $9/piece. (A savings of $75 dollars.)
At this kind of markup: my timing belt kit would've cost $200+ instead of $90, which falls right in line with the $600-$800 estimate from other shops.
If you're used to paying for parts through a garage: you're probably paying twice as much as you need to for parts.
Finding parts is a cinch: you can either ask your local part store [and then source the parts there, or online] -- or you can use a parts catalog like RockAuto which has their inventory broken down by make, model, year, and engine.
When it comes to car parts: it's worth shopping around to save money on shipping; auto parts can get quite heavy, and it makes a huge difference if you can get them shipped from a single warehouse.
That's a pretty good post; I'd add a small comment to:
"As a precaution: the last category involves some _very dangerous jobs._ -- Improper installation of brakes will at best render your vehicle immobile, at worst it will endanger the safety of yourself and others on the road."
You have to evaluate yourself and your ability to follow directions closely. Can you bake a cake and it is edible? Can you do basic sysadmin / programming stuff from instructions? Can you build ikea type furniture without damaging yourself or the tools or the furniture? If not, the odds of a successful brake job are pretty low. If you can, it'll probably be OK.
What I enjoy about working on my brakes, is because I'm doing it myself I can go as slow and methodical and detailed as possible; no boss standing over me complaining that book labor is 2 hrs and I'm at 1.75 hrs and we're both losing money in 15 minutes so slap it together and hope for the best. Its my life on the line and I've got all the time in the world; I'll triple check, just because I can.
And the money saved I can put into brand new top of the line parts, not re manufactured or merely as good as stock. Zero labor cost means I can buy the most expensive ridiculous "racing" "pro" level stuff and still come out ahead of taking it into a shop. Just like a synthetic oil change at home is cheaper than the used french fry grease or whatever it is the quickie lube place claims is motor oil.
The biggest problem I've found is you're not doing "real" suspension work until you crack an impact socket (been there, done that) or bend a one meter cheater bar by putting a ten foot pipe on it. Also you have to be pretty hard core to own a brake cylinder hone or spring compressor, some specialized stuff is pretty expensive.
>zero labor cost means I can buy the most ridiculous . . .
Amen! I spend $50 an oil change. Not because I take it to a shop, but because my cars only get the best of the best.
You bet I've tried running royal purple in my Mustang for shits and giggles!
Both my camry and mustang are little eco-tuned 4 cylinders, but they purr like kittens!
>until you crack an impact socket
I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others: that's actually what an impact socket is _designed to do._
They are made out of a different type of metal that cracks instead of shatters.
At the speed & torque these impact guns are capable of: using the right socket is the difference between being slightly bummed that you have to buy a new socket, and becoming legally blind in one eye.
>some specialized stuff is pretty expensive
At least around here: many autoparts stores will rent out such equipment for fairly reasonable prices.
(Of course they usually have a "you break it you bought it" policy if they don't offer some kind of insurance; and then you're paying full price for a broken machine.)
(You also may need _other_ equipment to drive it; for instance I don't really have a compressor suitable for pneumatic tooling at home.)
> I'm at 1.75 hrs and we're both losing money in 15 minutes so slap it together and hope for the best
My recent timing belt job is actually the first time either of my cars has been at a shop.
I dropped it off right before close in the middle of the week and the guy says: "and let me guess, you need it in a hurry?"
And I'm like: "of course not, take all the time you need!" (Writing this out: it may sound a little sarcastic. In context however it wasn't, this guy's shop is literally halfway between my home and my job, and both are in walking/biking distance. So I was in no rush for him to finish.)
At my last computer repair job we had a similar motto: the only way we lose money is if the customer comes back. Obviously expedience is something of a virtue when doing repairs [or any sort of billable work]: but I hope that many shops value doing a good job above beating the book time.
I've lived poor on a little more than $5000/yr for several years now, though it's due to living in developing nations and/or countries with hard-hit economies.
I still want things but I fully recognize it's just a want and not a need. Would I live 'normally' if I made more money? Well, I've come to find that paying for experiences is more important than having status or things that represent it.
Most of my current friends are not as poor as me but they aren't rich either. Though, I spent all of my teens with 'rich kids', for one reason or another, and they seemed to have no clue about how good they had/have it. If we all had to start from scratch, I'd survive while they wouldn't.
When the basics aren't covered automatically, there's a large psychological toll (the scarcity trap) that affects every single decision made. I'd rather know the art of being frugal than be oblivious to it (and how much of the world lives)...but I must say, the scarcity trap can be hell to deal with.
Living on 5000 is enough is simple enough when you start out with everything that is expensive already in your possession.
I have seen people live frugally, none of the cases in this story are meaningful. I am more interested in the unintentional poor, because by calling these people intentional means its a lifestyle choice. Lifestyle choices let you stack the deck prior to taking the choice. Its the perfect choice of vapid selfish people.
Its not like he has to buy the MBA or the iPad every year. Also cell phones in the US are way less than $50/month if you don't go with ATT, Verizon, Sprint, or T-mobile. I get Unlimited everything (with no data caps) for $20/month on Republic Wireless.
How about people who don't feel like locking themselves to a certain job and/or wage level, just to be able to afford and maintain the lifestyle mid+ income earners see as a necessity (when it most certainly isn't)? Freedom comes in many forms.
Joseph, OR, where the guy with the "Hobbit House" lives is a really unique place. There are a lot of people who live on very little there - many are artists, some are hermits, most are just plain poor as it is a difficult place to make a living. My family ranched there for several generations and we still spend vacation time in the area. The people that live there - and really, you could extrapolate this to much of middle america - are living for a lifestyle, not in pursuit of the almighty dollar. It's pretty typical in Joseph to see a $50K pickup and $30K snowmobiles in front of a 40 year old single-wide trailer - whatever money they have goes into their "toys." Is this existence better or worse than the urban "keeping up with the Jones?" Depends on what you want in life. But make no mistake about it, even someone who chooses to downgrade their wants and needs doesn't automatically have life easy. There is already snow on the ground around Joseph and it won't warm up again until about June. I've been snowed on there on the 4th of July. You could spend thousands just keeping yourself from freezing to death. The Oregon department of fish and wildlife has to deal with a lot of poachers - some because they feel entitled to a "lifestyle" but others, it's probably pure survival. I see articles like this as mostly propaganda, trying to position the reality in which most americans live as a positive choice rather than the consequences of stagnate incomes, et al. We have shanty towns, hunger, malnutrition, unclean water - all the problems of the developing world - but they are perhaps less visible and/or effect a smaller number of the overall population in a visible way.
I'd love to try this sort of lifestyle, but I can't help thinking I'd be bored out of my mind after a few weeks (without power to run a computer - programming problems in the evening might be interesting enough.)
I once worked minimum wage at Starbucks for a couple of weeks full time (gap between A-levels and starting uni.) I had worked there a day a week for about a year, and I enjoyed working there for that proportion of my time, alongside challenging-ish studies. But - when I hit the third or fourth day, the tiredness set in. Sweeping/mopping/hoovering a large store three evenings in a row, after being on your feet all day making coffee and smiling at people, is seriously hard work. And don't get me started on cleaning the loos. I am very courteous to people who work in retail.
It's not quite doing odd jobs around the town, but it's certainly the order of magnitude of work required to live this kind of lifestyle. Also, does the $5,000 a year seriously cover a return flight to Hawaii?!
I had friends that lived like kings in Santa Cruz CA for easily less than $500/year.
They lived for free in hidden tents/camps above UCSC, ate/made free food with Food Not Bombs, biked everywhere around CA and generally just lived it up.
There are other ways to exist and thrive in this world outside the grind.
If you charge the costs of your pension (I challenge you can make even 5k when you are 80+ years old) and health on society, sure, you can live on that amount.
That was also my first reaction to the title, "so I see they've met my grandmother". Prop tax on half a house and some maintenance is a couple hundred a month, and some food, that's about it. She obtained about 4,5,6 who knows how many times as much from pensions and from SS but she actually only spent perhaps $5K/yr on herself. Too old to drive safely, not into consumer electronics other than a top of the line TV and top of the line satellite subscription (only old people watch TV anymore), loved to cook / didn't like restaurant food / very picky about food, not into clothing fashions, what is someone like that supposed to spend money on for themselves, anyway? Mostly gave her money away to charities, family, etc.
> The intentional poor are “looking for something real that goes beyond commodity,” said Karen Halnon, a sociology professor at Pennsylvania State University and author of "Consumption of Inequality."
See, the historical edition of "something real" and the mainstream reason to pay for the house is called "your children". I don't expect many of these people are raising any, so there you go.