from Hacker News

Living on $5,000 a year, on purpose: Meet America's 'intentional poor'

by bsullivan01 on 10/13/13, 8:18 PM with 51 comments

• by kiddz on 10/13/13, 10:48 PM

  Money only gives you options, even if it's other peoples' money manifested in the resources of the State via taxation and public spending.

  First world problems/opportunities . . . the underlying story here is that nearly none of this is possible without a well funded and run state. Riding 4500 miles across country, collecting sponsorships, going to a strangers house from CL for a fan. . . all speaks to road, police and the like allowing people to survive/thrive because there is general stability around them. These people experience none of the poverty problems that come from a lack of choices.

• by tokenadult on 10/14/13, 12:29 AM

  The article kindly submitted here reports: "More than two decades ago, then-33-year-old Dan Price had a wife, two small children, a high-interest mortgage, and a stressful job as a photojournalist in Kentucky. He worried daily about money and the workaday grind."

  Then the article follows up on what Price thinks about his life after he read the book Payne Hollow and his marriage broke up. "'I like being able to do what I want to do,' said Price, who pays $100 a year for his land. '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?'"

  So my question about that is, does he believe in a father supporting his young children growing up? I sure do. I can think of a lot of lifestyle adjustments I might make to simplify my life if I had no minor children, but while my children are young, I'm very well going to live with them and participate in supporting them financially. After all, I had the choice at the beginning about whether or not to have children, but my children had no choice about whether they were born to a dad who steps up or a dad who checks out and forgets about them.

• by gexla on 10/14/13, 12:04 AM

  Dude spends $5000 a year living in a cave? I could live all year in the Philippines with a normal house and not really having to cut back on much.

  This article is silly to be talking about poverty on purpose. These guys are living really frugal, not in poverty.

• by Bhel on 10/14/13, 12:26 AM

  Reminds me of that meme of the hippie who uploads her anti-capitalist propaganda from her new iPhone, using McDonald's Wi-Fi.

  I don't get how this is worth of an NBC article. Perhaps since I'm used to a whole different socio-economic context; I live in Mexico, where the minimum wage is below $2,000 USD a year, so I don't find $5,000 a year to qualify as "poor" or to be anything impressive.

  I know many cases of people who live with way less than that, including myself; I've never had a formal job, and have always lived from one or two days of freelance work each month, or from schoolarships. Sometimes I go for a full month with around $300 USD.

  I agree with Gexla in that this is silly at best.

• by sz4kerto on 10/13/13, 9:55 PM

  I live in the EU and the median wage in my country is around $5000 a year after taxes.

• by tsm on 10/14/13, 12:24 AM

  I'm sure I could subsist on a very minimal salary. But what would I be left doing? I enjoy traveling, I enjoy playing several musical instruments, I enjoy owning a reasonable computer (granted, my main laptop is a $300 eBay find), I enjoy eating interesting food, I enjoy buying books, I enjoy doing fun things with friends. And I wish I worked less so I could do all of the above a lot more.

  Sure, I could compromise on all of that. Couchsurf. Use the library (both for its books and its computers). Become a better cook to make more with less. Do other things with friends. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

  But the mere term "compromise" implies "loss of originally-expected value", and there comes a point where I could have all the time in the world and not enjoy spending time on anything. Back to the OP, I question what Price does all day when he's not working odd jobs. I almost expected him to be an artist or novelist or somesuch.

• by bostonscott on 10/14/13, 1:06 AM

  Many bright, independently minded people go through rebellious phases as they ascend into adulthood.

  "Why must I adhere to society's unwritten rules? I'm better than that. I'll never join the bourgeoisie!"

  Those were my sentiments in my early 20's. But I was being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. It was a knee-jerk coping mechanism, not the articulation of well-reasoned philosophy.

  I was very immature. As if I would commit my life to forgoing and perhaps even scorning the richness borne of productivity in favor of squaller! Why would I want to punish myself in such a way?

  I believe the same holds true for many people like the subjects of this article. They are bright people, but the messages they articulate about society and its inequities and injustices are riddled with serious contradictions.

  You can be an empathetic, generous, and extraordinarily charitable human being without imposing poverty on yourself.

• by spurgu on 10/13/13, 9:27 PM

  I would definitely do something like this if I didn't happen to live in latitudes where it's cold and snowy in the winter.

• by dlsx on 10/13/13, 9:27 PM

  This article is full of fabrication.

  The girl claims to live on $1000 a month in NYC, and she only pays $135 a week for an extra room in a crap neighborhood.

  Leaving her, with $540 to live on... In NYC, for 30 days. Now, I'm sure this is possible, but she is sitting there on a macbook. Welp, there goes your budget for the entire year! And this article claims less is making these people happier. Not really, and they are just exploiting their so called frugality to make a buck from selling their story. Of course they wouldn't be lying about collecting welfare and hypocritically supporting #OWS.

  TL;DR The article fails to mention these people are also exploiting the system collecting welfare.