Hacker News Reader

Comment by mronetwo | Hacker News Reader

Ideally, this. Realistically, not sure about this. It might be a bit of a crapshoot. It might yield very rewarding "jobs" but it's difficult to put your mind into it, when you just want to make a living. It just feels like you have to cross certain wealth threshold to do this. It might not reflect reality but this feeling of "I need a 9 to 5 to just keep myself afloat" is real.

View on HN

You're right about that. And this is something I've been thinking about for quite some time. My rejoinder is that most people have a set of compromises they can make that might make them a lot wealthier than they think.

For example, a friend of mine was complaining that he had to work hard to afford a house. However, he was dead-set on a set of ideals and a location he wanted to settle at. Maybe part of that was preference, but it was clear that part of that was some sort of preconceived notion hammered into him by society and peer examples.

Instead, he could have aimed to buy a cheaper house in a smaller town while working/renting in the current town and just moved out. In my home town, even smaller houses cost at least 400K but there are plenty of nice places where the houses are 60K. So, buy one of those instead and move away once you've saved up enough...

By taking a month and seriously going through what's important to have a happy, "basic" life, most people will find things that they can give up, but that will make them happier in the long run. Like living in a certain neighbourhood, buying this or that, taking a certain number of vacations, having an extra child, a dog, etc.

Most people end up saving TOO much for retirement...and while caution is good, our society hammers this idea of an extremely consumptive lifestyle that these endless 9-5 jobs support.

> there are plenty of nice places where the houses are 60K.

Citation super needed. Where in the US can I buy a house for $60,000? Does it have a roof?

Spoiler alert: be prepared to spend a ton of money of gas, and hours for driving to any kind of doctor's office beyond a GP. A friend of a friend commuted for 4 hours each day to go to school as a kid because her family lived so far out.

I still agree with the general sentiment though. I'm happy with living in a 1br condo and taking public transport, but I had coworkers that "needed" a detached house with a back yard and a moderately expensive car.

> I'm happy with living in a 1br condo and taking public transport, but I had coworkers that "needed" a detached house with a back yard and a moderately expensive car.

Where it takes 4+ typical incomes to make basic bills(kind of everywhere), most apartments are a tough option.

Yes, you are very right and point out some valid criticisms. Because the typical 9-5 style has been so effective (it out-competes other life-styles because it is the most useful for our capitalistic, consumerist society), our entire infrastructure is designed around it, which further eliminates alternative options or at least makes them more scary.

I always though the 9-5 style was because a lot of work is easier when it's light outside and people are awake.

Well, I was thinking of Canada. I found quite a few nice, basic houses (by this, I mean a place you can actually live in, not reno projects) for around $60K USD. I'm talking about sparse provinces like Saskatchewan. I also found some now with a quick search in Alabama (US) for around $70K. Check out sparsely populated, small places in the US, and search for small houses. Hey, I never said it would be a mansion.

Houses under 100k CAD are either

- So far away from a major (by Canadian standards) city you're basically living in the middle of nowhere

- Run down and you're looking at 100k in renovations and upgrades

- Unless you're working remotely or are already well off, there are no well paying jobs out in the middle of nowhere

- Education is an issue: far away from schools for kids and only southern BC, southern Ontario, southern Quebec have high ranking universities/colleges

Any house in a desirable location is out of reach for many people. More and more people are now looking further out, thus driving prices higher in those locations as well. I don't think these people are looking to necessarily move out into the middle of Saskatchewan or other middle-Canada provinces where they can get those 100k homes for the reasons listed above.

100k house in Canada is a mobile home.

Not really. There are actual homes, but they're old and no where close to major cities

Couple of examples

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25857143/101-galway-stree...

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25917262/323-pottery-stre...

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25938347/3-pacholok-avenu...

honestly id rather have the mobile home, easier to fix, probably closer to stuff i want [insert meth joke here], and i don't have to worry about the foundation flooding.

Most single child-free people perhaps. "Move somewhere cheaper" is about as helpful as "stop buying Starbucks" for an out of work breadwinner. Moving my kids away from their friends and school is an absolute last resort.

I do appreciate what you are saying. And, I never meant my post to be a quick-fix. It may be that it would only work a little later when your kids are older. But it can still work as a general life plan.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that you know what people want better than they do.

The attitude of "keeping up with the Joneses" is almost an urban legend. People are not moving to the suburbs and having kids and dogs because they aren't strong enough to stand up to societal pressures. They move to the suburbs and have kids and dogs because that's what they've done throughout human evolution. The person who thinks they can leave and live independently is the oddball.

>Most people end up saving TOO much for retirement

I have a bridge to sell to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com