US low cost living

[jacob]

It's interesting how there still is a bit of a gender division and blood-kin paradigm baked into the concept of household. I think the concept is almost a the point at which it will need to be disposed of due to the huge growth in single human "households."

This depends a lot on which spiral color the culture of a given area has reached. For the kind of rural low cost suggestions in this thread, expect to find a lot of purple/red/blue and a certain aversion towards orange/green. When an upstate New Yorker in 2025 reports that a dead relative visited them from the afterlife in the form of a particular insect (dragonflies for some reason) or bird (I forget which species...), they're not pulling your leg. I did not pull the example with the matriarch and the revolving assortment of half-siblings and NEET satellites out of my ass. It's both observed and studied sociologically. Single occupancy households are more of an orange and especially green "big city" way of life. For starters, it requires having a high enough wealth/income to pay for an entire home yourself. This typically requires having a significant level of education in formal thinking in order to make that level of income.

There's quite the cultural gap to overcome for someone whose worldview is founded on money obtained by applying a college education towards klacking on a keyboard and spent in various shops to obtain consumer goods... and someone whose worldview revolves around spirits, luck, and taking care of kin.

Of course this is all speaking very generally (and possibly insultingly). I'm sure it'll raise objections and mentions of many exceptions but that's missing the forest for the trees! Yet it's a powder keg of misunderstanding and miscommunication. For example, when some metropolitan/orange policy-wonk says "they're following the news", they mean that they read several different newspapers across the spectrum and subscribe and comment on substack pundits referring back to political theory. Whereas when Cousin Angie from Podunkagonk, XY says she's "reading all the news", she means that she's clicking on all the articles in her facebook feed. It is what it is, but try to cross that communications barrier from unstated presumptions [about what "all the news" means] in casual conversation or serious debate.

Yes, there's internet but whereas to the average orange white collar worker using "the internet" is effectively synonymous with "googling"; whereas once you reach the demographic "who never use a keyboard", being on the internet is much more likely to be synonymous with scrolling through tiktok. This has very practical implications. If the former casually suggests to "look it up on the internet", the latter will not grok what they mean. This goes both ways. If you want say something that people who read books (plural) will never hear about, just put it on tiktok.

Navigating these waters requires a certain amount of [cultural] code-switching that people who've never lived in both kinds of places (cultures, really) aren't aware of. There's a lot more to making a successful transition than finding a good real estate deal in the BFE based on middle class professional assumptions about what's important.

Each cultural sphere is internally consistent. However, they are also very different with not much overlap in terms of what people think about and how they think about them. The question is whether someone "emigrating" to such a place can integrate themselves to the institutions and beliefs of that place. I'm suggesting that this is way more difficult than it sounds. There's more to it than just running the budget and figuring out the local bus system.

Really, the only remaining "problem" in the move towards strict Individualism is the question of to what extent children should be subject to their parents and/or the state for their welfare.

The "mature green society" answer is that the state provides for the welfare of the children (every child gets the same high (but not super-high) level of service in terms of daycare, school, after school activities, higher education ... regardless of parental income). The primary responsibility of the parents to their children is to house them, feed them, and keep them out of [criminal] trouble. There are other ways, but this particular way generally works.

[Jean]

There's a joke in there somewhere...

I already made that mistake before

[ducknald_don]

People are not pleased about the fact that rich people don't have to work like everybody else, but they're much more disgruntled that NEETs not only not work, but "leech off" people who do work.

It takes quite a lot of propaganda to make people hate the less well off.

[Jean]

Except in france, i think everyone dislike the people who choose to use the social safety net instead of juggling beetween a few somewhat unhealthy poorly paid part time jobs.

[zbigi]

It takes quite a lot of propaganda to make people hate the less well off.

I think it probably started with the welfare state? Before that, people did not feel that they're subsidizing (via taxes) somebody's else's choice to NEET, so had few reasons to dislike them for just that.

[jacob]

It takes quite a lot of propaganda to make people hate the less well off.

That's not really what's going on. I think @zbigi's full original quote actually explains the social dynamics well. People (SD:blue) don't hate the less well off. Indeed, charity and "helping the helpless" is a virtue in that world.

However, there's also a strong belief and part of an unspoken social contract that everybody has "a duty to work if they can" and that "work is ennobling". One of the worst kinds of human in that value system is a "lazy bum"(*) who chooses not to work and sponges off on the work of those who do work. Regardless of whether the work is BS like digging holes and filling them up again because no meaningful jobs are available, SD:blue believes to the bottom of their heart that hard work is necessary to building good moral character. Insofar it's propaganda, it's ancient propaganda and part of a cultural worldview that dates back to medieval times. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse ... a place of "moral reform" with long traditions.

(*) "Lazy bum" is a better term than NEET as far as this argument is concerned. Indeed, nitpicking the technical details of an acronym to see who/what fits in so as to game the system or explanation is a very SD:Orange thing to do and NOT how the newest FIRE arrival in a low-cost living area will be judged as they begin their new life.

SD:Blue does have some tolerance for "the rich" because while they're not working, the rich are from the perspective of SD:blue already noble in some sense. And maybe more importantly, they have their own money and pay their own way. Perhaps even more importantly, the rich are not part of the working community and so do not corrupt the work-morality of the community by not working.

My usual strategy for "explaining myself" as a FIRE'd individual to SD:blue (like my dad, who strongly believes in work for the sake of work) is that 1) I have actually worked for my savings, so I'm not lazy; and 2) I'm paying for myself and not sponging off on other people. This is understandable from within their perspective and so my not-working is tolerated even if I'm not behaving in any "ennobling" laboring kind of way.

I've given up on explaining the idea of investments and passive income [to SD:blue]. There's simply too much cognitive dissonance: What? Making money from money? Not working? That's crazy talk/there's probably something he's not telling us. As far as that's considered, a FIRE'd person is an outsider. Whereas SD:Orange (not that many of those around in those $25,000/home areas), being FIRE'd is having won the game.

[7Wannabe5]

Whereas SD:Orange (not that many of those around in those $25,000/home areas), being FIRE'd is having won the game.

This might be true for those who are already wearying of Level Orange themselves, but there are definitely many others for whom ego engagement in stuff and profession is still very strong at Orange. Also, I have not particularly found myself thrilled with the conversation to be found in many extremely Level Orange venues. In my experience, the most interesting places to live are those that have a great deal of variety, although I will grant you that it may be difficult to find realms where the variety goes as high as Level Yellow, but housing prices are low. Since the U.S. (at least until recently) is known for its top rung University system, one means by which to better split the difference between cheap housing and decent conversation would be to include radius from University in search. However, unfortunately, since this has roughly been my methodology, I can report that the downside is the likelihood that this will place you in an urban crime zone. OTOH, I had quite a few interesting conversations sitting at my flea market booth selling used books in a mixed tourist/rural area where you could buy a derelict yet inhabitable hunting cabin on a few acres for $35,000 if you shopped around a bit. So, the chaotic edge places are your best bet, but you have to pay attention to which side of the edge you are on for what purpose. By far the worst, most culturally dead, place I have lived in my life was a completely unwalkable Level Blue/Orange suburb; the sort of place where McMansions are relatively affordable compared to much cooler places, but you are still at the outer reaches of the expressway system for urban commute.

[Jean]

@jacob
I think i most coutries, this group of people is designed by the name of the gvt handout that allows them to survive, so
Jean-rsa in france
Arz4er in germany
Cassoce in switzerland
Etc...
You are right that having your own money is much better percieved thant getting those hand out. I think that the core value might then not be work in itself, but carrying your own weight if no accident made you unable to do so.
I think it is because people dont like to pay taxes, and if you live of taxes,you make their taxes bigger.

[7Wannabe5]

It has been my observation that men who are almost brutal in their application of work ethic to other men or women they do not find attractive will often swing hard in the other direction when it comes to women, youth, or pets they do find attractive. IOW, boots in duty at Blue, flaring to Red when any obstacle to agency encountered, but eyes on Trophy towards Orange. And a trophy is not a tool made for work. Therefore, the only thing more infuriating than a lazy bum is a lazy bum with a beautiful woman on his arm. OTOH, a cute-enough female who lounges around reading books most of the day, but maybe rouses herself to cooking a pot of soup and walking the dog is often a bit too confusing for a Level Blue/Orange male to process. End game, if you are called to question for your sloth, you can fairly easily structure the logic of the dialogue to result in a juncture where "So, basically, you are sending me out to work because I am ugly." might be injected.

[chenda]

I wonder how much of this is a protestant work ethic cultural thing.

[delay]

Except in france, i think everyone dislike the people who choose to use the social safety net instead of juggling beetween a few somewhat unhealthy poorly paid part time jobs.

In The Netherlands it depends on your social rank. Wage workers hate social safety and think you're a bum if you get paid without working. Salaried workers are entirely fine with using unemployment or disability benefits. Many well educated couples have one partner who is on disability benefits for an illness that is impossible to diagnose. If you map out The Netherlands by benefit expenditure, the richest areas have the highest benefit usage

[7Wannabe5]

There's a long history of women feigning illness in order to avoid having sex with their husbands, because having sex with their husbands would likely result in more work, both in terms of pregnancy and labor and more family members requiring care. In late 19th, early 20th century U.S., Protestants girls were encouraged to avoid Catholic boys for this reason. It was the balance of Protestant work ethic and Protestant frugality, which also applied to limiting family size, which allowed for the accumulation of wealth within the household unit, as opposed to the Church itself.

[chenda]

It was the balance of Protestant work ethic and Protestant frugality, which also applied to limiting family size, which allowed for the accumulation of wealth within the household unit, as opposed to the Church itself.

Yes that makes sense. The global fertility rate was 5 children per woman up to 1965, in 2025 number has halved to below 2.5 children per woman. Some sources suggest we have fallen to replacement levels.

[Western Red Cedar]

Housing costs should be <30% of income. With a mortgage and typical interest rates, one pays around twice the cost of the home over 30 years. So mortgage buyers pay 2x what cash buyers pay. So the economic ceiling for housing prices is around 15% relative to income.

The price of a home is therefore between 1/0.3 and 1/0.15 or 3.3x and 6.6x depending on how people own the houses and what they can afford.

Affordability is relative. Regardless of where you live, you will not see home prices straying far away from 3--7x the annual household incomes of the area. Temporary exception if an area's real estate gets hot (rising population and/or rising incomes) or cold (declining population and/or declining incomes).

IIRC, Robert Shiller made the case that healthy housing markets over the last 100+ years in the US have generally had prices at 3x or less than the median income for the metro area. There were obvious outliers due to certain types of employers or high-value recreational amenities (ie Vail, Manhattan, etc.), but the ratio between median household income and housing price stayed pretty stable.

This was before the bubble in the last five years though. I don't think he was accounting for the interest in the associated mortgage, just the underlying sale price.

[delay]

Yes that makes sense. The global fertility rate was 5 children per woman up to 1965, in 2025 number has halved to below 2.5 children per woman. Some sources suggest we have fallen to replacement levels.

Looked it up, and it looks like global fertility is still positive, although it's going down fast. According to our world in data the UK already has a negative natural growth (determined by births and deaths, ignoring migration). The US is projected to go negative growth in 2042, and the world in 2084. It's mostly African women who still have a high fertility rate.

[chenda]

@delay - From what I understand the replacement birth rate is between 2.1 - 2.2 births per woman, depending on infant mortality rates. Although that presumably assumes that half the births are girls, which isn't the case in some societies. Even if we hit replacement levels the world's population will continue to grow for several more decades due to demographic momentum.

[7Wannabe5]

@delay:

The U.S. and most highly developed realms have been below replacement rate (2.1 births for female) for births for some time, but the increases to longevity have delayed the drop of the overall natural growth rate. However, the U.S. has recently also seen a drop in overall longevity, largely due to deaths of despair, now numbering around 110,000 per year. This is why fentanyl trafficking is an important trigger issue for populist politics in the U.S. This level is similar to the level of deaths due to alcoholism in the former Soviet Union as it was collapsing.

One reason why birth rates are dropping globally faster than projected is that in realms that more recently and rapidly developed from Level Blue/Traditional to Level Orange/Modern, the downside of having kids for females is even greater, because the wife/mother role is relatively even more culturally constrictive. IOW, it's kind of like they hopped right over Wave 2 Betty Friedan feminism to Wave 3 Carrie Bradshaw feminism, because their place in the industrial/post-industrial workplace came pre-created.

Even if we hit replacement levels the world's population will continue to grow for several more decades due to demographic momentum.

A minority of demographers are actually claiming that we will hit global population peak at a much lower level quite soon. Or, as is often seen in collapse situations, the level may fluctuate around a soon to be achieved central value, but never quite reach the 10/11 billion number previously projected to be achieved near century end. I like to think that this is a manifestation of the feminine energy intuitive sense of scarcity. Can Carrie Bradshaw not afford a baby, because she buys 100 pairs of expensive shoes (masculine thinking) or does she buy 100 pairs of expensive shoes, because she intuits that she can't afford to have a baby.

[chenda]

A minority of demographers are actually claiming that we will hit global population peak at a much lower level quite soon. Or, as is often seen in collapse situations, the level may fluctuate around a soon to be achieved central value, but never quite reach the 10/11 billion number previously projected to be achieved near century end.

In the late 1960s the total human population could fit onto the Isle of Wight, albeit standing room only. Today you would need 3 islands although I'm thinking a total human population of around 3.5 billion is about optimal.

I also predict the human gene pool is becoming more diverse due to greater mobility and more international relationships. More outbreeding and less inbreeding within closely related genetic lines. This should improve our resilience as a species to various threats.

[Jean]

If you mix, you lose diversity. You might get some new gene combination at the begining, but de gene diversity will collapse quite quickly.

[zbigi]

Can Carrie Bradshaw not afford a baby, because she buys 100 pairs of expensive shoes (masculine thinking) or does she buy 100 pairs of expensive shoes, because she intuits that she can't afford to have a baby.

Post-WWII Polish women did not have to intuit scarcity though, they were living it every day. 6 or 7 day work week, salaries which required you to save for months to buy a winter coat or piece of furniture, flats that were unsuitably small for families (my grandma and grandpa lived with their four kids in a 300 sqft studio) - those were the realities of mothers who created the post-War baby boom, at least in Poland. The scarcity was screaming in everybody's face, and yet people decided to have families, often large ones. Nowadays scarcity is much more subtle (bordering on theoretical for many people), and yet the fertility rate dropped like a stone. It seems more like a change of values and expectations than external circumstances (scarcity).