Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This. i have friends in boston and nyc. in boston, you cant find a studio for 1500 a month unless its in a bad area, super small, or its a complete craphole.
the bottom of the market studios cost about 900 a month but its really not a wise idea to live in that kind of place.
And lots of folks in NYC, Boston, & the link have roommates even in their late 20s as well. It's all about choices. Can't save more but have a 2BR as a single person? Cry me a river.
I've been in parts of Vietnam where extended families are living in maybe a 400 sq foot house with dirt floors, no electricity or running water. You couldn't even legally do that here but it does satisfy the necessity for housing. The contrast also serves an example of America's consumption problem where so many people really think they NEED a 1bd-2bd apartment all to themselves. You just don't.
Exactly. Especially the bolded. I with I could send ALL Americans who think they need a 1BR-2BR for a single person to ANY 3rd World country (even one of the somewhat better off ones like Chile or Costa Rica). It would really wake people up on how much of their "needs" are really just wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
More practically, Europe it's MUCH more common to have roommates well past college. The economy isn't as good and housing is much more expensive. Most young people who are just starting out cannot afford their own place.
Amen to that! I hear many on CD extol the virtues of the European welfare state....yet if Americans would live even more like Europeans in terms of their housing, and save the difference, they would have the same or better financial security as most Europeans do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
It's common in major cities in the US as well. San Francisco or NY, for example, it's very common.
Exactly. As one who lives in one of those high cost areas, I have no sympathy for those who are single in their late 20s living in 2BR apartments saying cutting back on their lifestyle to save more for retirement is too much of a sacrifice. I rented rooms in single family homes 'til I was 35...so I really don't wanna hear this BS on how it's too hard, blah, blah, blah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Out where I live where the cost of housing is much lower it's harder to find people that I wouldn't object to living with. There's less normal people sharing housing and a larger percentage of people that can't hold a job, maybe have substance abuse problems. You can still find them, of course, you just need to look a little harder, especially as you get older than your early 20s/college age where it's completely normal. But that's kind of like needing a new car. You just don't. I'm sure it's nicer to drive a brand-new BMW than a Geo Metro, but the Geo Metro gets the job done too.
Yes, I acknowledge that it is harder to find responsible roommates in low cost areas and that the amount you save is more marginal as well. But a 2BR for a single person is excessive, IMO.
Why are you comparing America to the third world where lots of people cram into a space not much bigger than a dog kennel? Is that what we should do to save money for retirement, cram four or five into a 400 sq ft room?
There is sometimes a blurry line between wants and needs. Most Americans err on the side of wants, but inferring people should cram into 400 sq ft rooms or have bunches of roommates is ridiculous.
400 square feet isn't a "room". It's studio apartment size and works just fine for a single person. Heck, the people below me share 2 to a studio. What's ridiculous to me is the amount of square footage that Americans (especially in low cost areas) think they "need". It's beyond ridiculous.
Also, a lot of it is peer pressure. It is common for people to say that they "couldn't stand to live like that", yet in situations/cultures/places/times where everyone must do so and there are no other options, it doesn't bother them after a while, they get used to it. They are not uncomfortable, and they are not suffering. To them, it's just how life is.
It's all about what you expect, not what you need. It's not even about being comfortable so much as not being disappointed relative to what you think you "deserve" or are "supposed" to have.
Beautiful I couldn't rep you again and I couldn't have said it better.
I haven't seen anyone come that close to implying that people should cram into 400 sq foot rooms or have bunches of roommates. I have, however, seen a lot of people thinking they NEED to live to typical middle-class American standards. That is actually fairly endemic in American culture. People should do whatever they want, imo. Just realize the typical American middle-class lifestyle is one of abundance. Nothing wrong with that at all. I enjoy a lot of those things greatly. What I don't do is try and convince myself they are necessities.
Exactly. Or as Mr. Money Mustache put it more bluntly (and comically). The typical middle class American lifestyle is an exploding volcano of wastefulness.
Mr. Money Mustache’s advice? Almost all of that is nonsense: Your current middle-class life is an Exploding Volcano of Wastefulness, and by learning to see the truth in this statement, you will easily be able to cut your expenses in half – leaving you saving half of your income. Or two thirds, or more. Sound like a fantasy? Not to readers of this blog.
Humans are a social species and perceived social norms can easily take over your deepest desires without you having any idea that it happened!
OMG, another perfect statement. You're firing on all cylinders today!
Mr. Money Mustache said something very similar in one of his blog pieces...don't feel like looking for the link right now. But he basically said if you're not actively thinking about planning your life, about what actually matters to you, about what actually makes you happy (as opposed to what you're told), then you're actually just acting on a set of thoughts and assumptions implanted in your brain by somebody else.
A 4-hour daily commute is like working a second, part-time job without pay. Optionally, putting 10-12 hours per day into your job would likely gain you more rapid promotions and recognition. Even spending the 4-hours trying to come-up with a better solution is more productive (and a better alternative for your family) than simply driving.
.... or, you could simply keep driving 4-hours every day.
The only way it makes sense is if you can swing a four day work week every week. And hopefully it is an easy long drive, not one of those 2 hours to go 40 miles kind of drives.
The only way it makes sense is if you can swing a four day work week every week. And hopefully it is an easy long drive, not one of those 2 hours to go 40 miles kind of drives.
I know someone that works in nyc that has a 9 hour shift due to the 1 hour lunch break, and it takes him 2 hours to go to work and 2 to come back.
Single renters in expensive metros just don't rent places with extra bedrooms for themselves. Just. Doesn't. Happen.
Sure it does. Not everybody is broke. Not everybody wants to be a condo owner (usually for mobility reasons). My secretary is a single renter in Chicago with a 2 bedroom.
I know someone that works in nyc that has a 9 hour shift due to the 1 hour lunch break, and it takes him 2 hours to go to work and 2 to come back.
sometimes i ask him what does he live for.
Yikes! I don't even think any amount of pay is worth all of that? 4 hours (about 17% of your day) is sitting in a car. Wow.
What was their answer when you asked?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.