US low cost living

[7Wannabe5]

Tourist towns can also be an exception to this rule with, for example, second houses located right on the lake averaging $350,000, but hunting cabins located 3 miles inland averaging $35,000. The cultural scene and consumable offerings in these locations will also be more of a hot mix. I attended high school in a tourist area that was turning into a suburb due to recent addition to expressway, and there was a great deal of diversity in household income, from recently constructed executive mansions on large acreage to tiny shack cottages located several blocks off of small lake front. Basically, anybody who lived near to one of the many small lakes, but not actually on a lake was considered to be relatively "poor."

[Stasher]

Basically what 7wannabe5 is describing above is what is happening everywhere here on the west coast of British Columbia. We are seeing pretty much net immigration of new residents from across Canada, North America and many international to this part of the world. In the last 12 years we have seen the average price of a single family home increase more than 50% and with that incomes have not risen to match that.

So as Jacob states, changes in household incomes is requiring multiple income earners contributing to housing costs if not wealthy retirees relocating here that we are seeing. Then the flip side is those who may be retired seniors on limited savings or pensions who have lived in their homes for decades are being impacted negatively by the "head tax" that Jacob has also descirbed before. They can't afford the cost of living and property taxes anymore in homes they may have lived for 5 years.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-new ... es-6648469

[jacob]

Husband and wife's combined income.

Presuming that is the typical family relationship. At the low(est) end of the economic curve, things are often more ... "complicated". Social capital (and liabilities) increasingly dominate all other forms of capital. A household might comprise a "family matriarch" holding together a revolving cast of ne'er-do-well men (sons and x-bfs) who come and go, continually accidentally pregnant daughters and granddaughters who may some day marry and move elsewhere, maybe a great grandparent (younger than 60), ... each contributing whatever two-to-three digit sums they managed to come across to help out each other pay whatever bills come due for the household and each other. It all adds up to that total household income.

Not saying that there aren't those who deliberately decide to live a planned and budgeted existence on a small footprint like described in the OP, but expect something like the above to be closer to the norm for those who don't spend 2-4hrs per day commuting. This is also why relying on family is considered so important. The idea of relying on a steady paycheck is almost inconceivable. Conversing about career problems or the finer points of portfolio management for financial independence... forget about it.

[sky]

Some low housing cost areas are caused by the loss of employment due to plant closures or decline in certain industries. In the 1980's and 1990's the city I live in lost a number of old automotive manufacturing jobs equal to about 20% of the city's population. A lot of people had to move out to get employment elsewhere. There was about a decade of decline, with abandoned houses sold for extremely low prices. Then the city cleaned up the old industrial port and demolished the old factories and suddenly it became a desirable tourist town on Lake Michigan. It is no longer affordable.

At the moment I see some college towns which are not doing well, for example Carbondale, IL, which has extremely low housing prices. I am not sure what recovery plan would look like for a city like that, but if you choose a city with amenities and decent infrastructure, it is possible that it will become desirable in a decade or so.

The whole Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys are extremely low cost at the moment.

If predicted technology changes related to electrification and precision fermenting come true, the Oilfields and cattle ranching areas will see a steep decline in population and housing prices.

If you want to live in a popular place, you are going to have to pay the high demand price.

[7Wannabe5]

At the low(est) end of the economic curve, things are often more ... "complicated". Social capital (and liabilities) increasingly dominate all other forms of capital.

And conversely, at the highest end of the economic curve, in most individualistic settings, social capital in the form of domestic inter-dependence is most often under-utilized. Thus, the openings made available for Lentil Baby functioning or similar at Level Yellow. IOW, "the family matriarch" in lower-income setting becomes "the working wife" in Modern middle-class setting and may be self-aware modularized at Post/Meta-modern into "the Lentil Baby" in more affluent setting (one in which a second income is fairly irrelevant either due to low spending/high income or combination of these.) For example, it has been my experience that "Lentil Baby" becomes valued over "Working Wife" at approximately Millionaire-Next-Door level of spending frugality combined with earned and investment income over $100 k/year.

[Laura Ingalls]

I’m going to respectfully disagree with Jacob that the low cost American small towns being some monolith of anti-intellectualism and poverty. There are small towns in my home state that are inhabited by only the very elderly and very addicted. There are others that are ultra clean and super culturally conservative that are there to service the mega farms. There are others that are bedroom communities to bigger places that are economically successful. Still others have more immigrants working in a plant of some kind. The physical beauty part is all over the map too. Boots on the ground might find a great little spot.

[jacob]

@LI - I think the area RE pricing will say a lot about which is which. (There can be a mix, like the village I grew up in. It is close enough to serve as a sleep-only commuter town, but it is also a derelict of long-gone plant/farm/business activity) Boots on the ground is crucial. It's going to be tough to find a place that's both clean (no crime, no NEETs), within 60-90(*) minutes from employment, and $25,000 for a non-condemned home. Lots of such places with homes for $100k and up though.

(*) That seems to be the limit of what most people will tolerate for 2x their daily drive. Further away and RE pricing falls off a cliff.

[sky]

The nice thing about FI is that you don't have to commute.

I am pretty much settled in my current location and don't plan to move anywhere, but I like to think that I could choose to live anywhere. The decision of where to live depends on price, amenities, proximity of retail, climate, natural features, history, etc. My personal preference is to avoid large cities and focus on the smallest cities that have the services I need. When I look for interesting places to live (mostly as entertainment and potential road trip destinations), I do a map search for Aldi and Walmart and look for the smallest cities that have both. I then do a Zillow search on the area for properties with at least 1 bedroom and under $100,000 (more or less).

For the most part this is entertainment. It is all fun and games until you start to think about actually buying something. I don't want the additional maintenance of a second home.

[chenda]

@Sky - I agree. I also consider small to medium sized towns an hour or two from a major conerbation can deliver best value for money in terms of quality of life.

There are often a lot of opportunities for geoarbitrage too.

[jacob]

The nice thing about FI is that you don't have to commute.

What I've been trying to say (without saying it) is that someone who is FI (or has a good WFH job) in such a place will likely live an isolated existence. If it's a commuter town, the commuters will be gone for 12 hrs per day. If it's a derelict social-transfer town, someone who is educated/ambitious enough to be FI or qualified for WFH will likely not find themselves having much in common with their neighbors.

As always, mileage may vary and exceptions exist.

[delay]

It's going to be tough to find a place that's both clean (no crime, no NEETs)

Had to look NEET up, it means Not in Employment, Education or Training. So if you're living off investments, you're NEET? You may be NEET yourself!

[jacob]

So if you're living off investments, you're NEET?

No, NEET does not generally include trust fund babies, venture capitalists, the independently wealthy, retired people, or stay at home moms. It refers to the social problem of people not adding (but often subtracting) [economic] value (paid or unpaid) to society and not having any interest in ever doing so. They've effectively dropped out of society.

[7Wannabe5]

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." 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.

[zbigi]

No, NEET does not generally include trust fund babies, venture capitalists, the independently wealthy, retired people, or stay at home moms. It refers to the social problem of people not adding (but often subtracting) [economic] value (paid or unpaid) to society and not having any interest in ever doing so. They've effectively dropped out of society.

That assumes trust fund babies, venture capitalists and independently wealthy are adding value to society
It's a certain double standard that you're only a drop out if you're not rich. I think it comes down to ability to sustain yourself - rich people sustain themselves with their money, regular people with their work, and NEETs have neither so they need to use other people's money and/or work. 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.

[chenda]

One could also argue that many NEETs do contribute to society in other non renumerated ways. However I think Jacobs observation is generally valid inasmuch that there is often an inverse correlation between housing affordability and availability of gluten free lattes, as it were. However, goldilocks areas do exist for those willing to be flexible in location or other ways.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, also at Level Green there are people who aren't pleased that rich Super-Orange people leech labor off of, for example, 14 year old kids working in rare mineral mines or create profits through exploitation of negative externalities such as fresh water pollution towards production of luxury automobiles. "Adding value to society" depends very much on the value-meme you inhabit.

[Jean]

I think it would be really hard to define neet consistently without including ere people or thrust fund babies.

I think exploiting the absence of consequence for negative externalities is a red value.

[chenda]

thrust fund babies.

There's a joke in there somewhere...

[7Wannabe5]

I think exploiting the absence of consequence for negative externalities is a red value.

Or maybe just a rogue "masculine" tendency that comes into exhibition early on as the spiral corrects in that direction every other color? Although, at Level Yellow this would likely be more self-aware internalized. As in, "Yes, I could sincerely spend infinity branching off negative first, second, nth order effects of my action, but pragmatism will limit me to maybe third order."

[chenda]

I do think some people suffer from too much geographic inertia. I told Amy that if she moved up north her housing costs would half whilst her salary would stay the same, and she could live in a nicer area and have a lot more desposable income. 'Nah, I prefer to complain about life in shithampton' was her de facto response.