With stories like these, it's easy to blame the guy and say he should've known better than to get into debt. To an extent I agree, however there's probably a bigger picture takeaway. There is a mismatch between what people expect/want based on what ideas are sold to them by society, and what is financially possible. You could make the argument that in the past, the wage to living cost ratio was high enough that you wouldn't have to bust your ass so much to just barely get by. Could he have lived more financially optimally? Yes (you always can). But is it that crazy to get an education and then expect a decent life after? The guy works 60 hours a week yet cannot afford housing, proper food, a family, nor any life pleasures. Is that reasonable? Is this really the best society we can come up with?
I wondering isn't possible for that person to move temporarily to his parent's home?
Before attacking me - i live in Southern Europe and most of children's here still living with parents or grandparents. I even know a house nearby where there are living 4 generations in one house.
"...and my parents, who live nearby, would have gladly taken me in. But I wanted to treat this period as a challenge, to prove to myself that I could accomplish hard things. Around that time, I was following a YouTuber.."
An "influencer" inspired him to do something he could write about.
> and my parents, who live nearby, would have gladly taken me in.
> Around that time, I was following a YouTuber named Michael Hickey, who made videos showing how he lived frugally out of his car. I decided to do the same thing.
Moving in with your parents post college shouldn't be a badge of shame in this era of real estate shortage/inflation, college superinflation, health care costs, decades of wage suppression, lack of college-education jobs.
Europe is ahead of the US in terms of urbanization and postindustrial economic structures, where real estate has long been totally owned by the elites. The US is moving towards a similar state with the arrival of massive private equity buyups of real estate.
> The US is moving towards a similar state with the arrival of massive private equity buyups of real estate.
This feels a little untruthful. PE and other investment vehicles are of course investing in multi-unit buildings (apartments) and have been part of some of the new rental communities that have been built out but they represent a small blip in the SFH side of real estate. The biggest shift in my opinion has been the creation of rental SFH communities backed by investment vehicles but again these are being newly built so at worst they have possible short-term impact on builder supply. I am not sure how that impacts the landscape though, new builds are adding to the rental stock.
It shouldn’t be a badge of shame at all. Family is the closest circle you’ll ever have, even your SO doesn’t count as much until proven through years. Living apart only makes sense if the conditions are too scarce or characters too incompatible.
This ignores broken families ofc, but atomized living probably correlates with that.
Sadly we often start really valuing the family only after it thins out substantially.
If you want to do some interesting reading about car living, check out r/priusdwellers[1]. The Prius seems to be favored because it can idle for so long with battery support.
This is an exception.
It's in canada, Québec of all place where cost of living is lower.
1- he should have stayed at home with his parent.
2- his parent should have help him with his debt.
3- he should have worked while studying: this is super rare.
4- university is much cheaper there like 2000$ per semester.
Should I go on?
Pre-pandemic 100k$ is an insane amount.
10k is common, so is 20k, but above that? pretty rare, yet he claims most of his friends had a similar situation.
HEC is one of the best finance school in canada, guy stay there 8 years, seems to have zero knowledge of money.
Then uber eats? That's weird. Most hec diploma will land you a 100k/years, after a few years. 400/month is not that much. Don't quit your job and become homeless for that!
Apart from the "education shouldnt run you into huge debts", "Gig economy and working 70 hours/week should not be normalised", "social life while young is not as important as paying off the racked up debts", and "this is a TikTok experiment, X number of people are watching me live my life" arguments which I'm sure will be discussed heavily, I found the "hacking one's life expenses to see how one can save money to payoff their debts" part interesting.
A house/apartment/address comes with a lot of fixed costs - rent/mortgage, insurance, maintenance fees, gas, electricity, sewage, water, internet, Amazon impulse purchases because there is space, furniture, appliances etc. If one doesnt need the address to register themselves as a resident of the city/town/country for legal purposes, mobile home + shared utilities(toilets, laundry, occasional hotel stays) would make an effective temporary hack to save a lot of money.
In fact most of mentioned expenses are due as well, when living in a car. The biggest exception being Amazon impulse purchases. Maybe there's a hack to avoid them?
Yes, they may be due but certainly not to the same extent.
Anecdotally, I pay :
1. Water fees - Approx EUR 23/month
2. Electricity - EUR 73/month
3. Trash collection- EUR 40/month
4. Home insurance (and home contents insurance) - EUR 40/month
5. Gas connection- EUR 24/month
6. Home Internet - EUR 70/month
7. Sewage - EUR 12/month
8. Property taxes
9. Window cleaning - EUR 12/2 months.
Ofcourse, they’re are all in a way “quality of life” costs. But, if I were to optimise for money, I could imagine living in a motorhome, pay my EUR 42/month gym fees and use the gym daily in addition to other shared utilities and avoid all those micro costs.
Everything comes with trade-offs, but it is worthwhile to think about alternative options for alternative priorities.
Well I actually think it's a good idea. A lot of people scoff at not having a real house/apartment or address, but I don't see why. As long as you can basically take care of yourself, living in a car should be totally feasible. We need to embrace more alternative living situations anyway such as tiny houses and minimalism because everyone owning big properties just isn't sustainable for our population.
Housing is much more expensive than it needs to be, and I'm saying that as a landlord.
But "a car" isn't the solution. I've seen some very nice looking van conversions that look merely cramped, but at least manage to fit in a proper bed, a food preparation area, and basic hygiene stuff like a toilet.
Likewise for actual houses, "sustainable" isn't the same thing as "small": The new house I live in in Berlin needs around half the power to stay warm as the apartment in the UK a third its size that I rent out.
This means the one I live in stays warm from (as an annual average) slightly less than the body heat of the two occupants.
Proper insulation and ventilation costs a lot as well... meaning more debt.
I think we're not tackling the root cause in this whole discussion. People having to bottom their lifestyle because of debt.
A lot of debt is avoidable, for example student debt, if you live in a country with a well built education system. Owning a house could also made be more affordable.
It's a pitty that in the US half op people still seem to be voting for the most capitalistic side.
There is a difference between 'totally feasable' and 'inhuman and stupid'.
Its totally feasable in an emergency situation or if you just want to live like this.
But otherwise? its not okay. Peple want save spaces. A toilet at night, a bed. And not random poeple looking into your car and not shitting on the side of a street.
Trying to receive mail or apply for public benefits can be difficult without a permanent address. There's a stigma associated with applying for jobs if you can't list an address.
Edit: I agree single-family homes are insane, the solution is affordable apartments close to transit, not the rugged individualism of people living in cars.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." [1]
Where do you want to draw the line between "everyone needs big properties" and "living off your car should be considered as adequate housing"?
Won't there be a bunch of empty houses in 2 or 3 generations anyway due to the fertility rates crashing down globally below fertility replacement levels?
I am skeptical that a lot stuffed with "tiny houses" is actually more resource-efficient than that same lot with apartment buildings.
And, uh, the only resource that "big properties" exhausts is density. If you don't mind having to drive half an hour to get to town, there's plenty of room.
This is unnatural and unhealthy. For the individual and the society alike.
Societies are obsessed with economic (amount of dollars) performance and the competition between and inside countries. Which on this level [1] is sick and unsustainable. The economy makes lots of money for the sake of making lots of money and for competition exploiting the livelihood of common people, sucking lots of surcharge in advance for the most basic necessities of a human being like knowledge and place to live (lack of those is social if not literal suicide), driving up competition and prices, that drives competition and payments in advance (debt) even further, in a sick downward loop. Exploiting people for extra profit for few that they have no idea how to spend so are panicing what to do with it calling investment, but more like a nervous jumping from here to there in haste, shaking the economy apart slowly in speculational rampage. People making up the society are getting to be a wreck this way or the other (as taking part of the nerve wrecking race or by left behind to rot). It is held together still somehow, but how long? Does not seem sustainable at all. It was better not being part of this humanity. This way. But what else? Could I be a magpie instead perhaps? That sounds much better idea that this high pace nervous struggling called human life. Especially when we had a better choice if we were not so damn competitive all, I mean all the time.
[1] Competition is unavoidable with our finite resources and is highly beneficial on a sustainable level
Readit News
So much hindsight clarity in that article.
I know when I was in high school and in early adulthood I didn't understand much about personal finance.
There should be multiple classes in high school and college/uni that teach you about this stuff.
And parents should be teaching their kids about money.
Before attacking me - i live in Southern Europe and most of children's here still living with parents or grandparents. I even know a house nearby where there are living 4 generations in one house.
He artificially induced the situation.
> and my parents, who live nearby, would have gladly taken me in.
> Around that time, I was following a YouTuber named Michael Hickey, who made videos showing how he lived frugally out of his car. I decided to do the same thing.
Europe is ahead of the US in terms of urbanization and postindustrial economic structures, where real estate has long been totally owned by the elites. The US is moving towards a similar state with the arrival of massive private equity buyups of real estate.
This feels a little untruthful. PE and other investment vehicles are of course investing in multi-unit buildings (apartments) and have been part of some of the new rental communities that have been built out but they represent a small blip in the SFH side of real estate. The biggest shift in my opinion has been the creation of rental SFH communities backed by investment vehicles but again these are being newly built so at worst they have possible short-term impact on builder supply. I am not sure how that impacts the landscape though, new builds are adding to the rental stock.
This ignores broken families ofc, but atomized living probably correlates with that.
Sadly we often start really valuing the family only after it thins out substantially.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/priusdwellers/
Should I go on?
Pre-pandemic 100k$ is an insane amount. 10k is common, so is 20k, but above that? pretty rare, yet he claims most of his friends had a similar situation.
HEC is one of the best finance school in canada, guy stay there 8 years, seems to have zero knowledge of money.
Then uber eats? That's weird. Most hec diploma will land you a 100k/years, after a few years. 400/month is not that much. Don't quit your job and become homeless for that!
Lots of bad choices here.
Not all parents can afford to help their kids with their debts, we don't know details about their financial situation.
A house/apartment/address comes with a lot of fixed costs - rent/mortgage, insurance, maintenance fees, gas, electricity, sewage, water, internet, Amazon impulse purchases because there is space, furniture, appliances etc. If one doesnt need the address to register themselves as a resident of the city/town/country for legal purposes, mobile home + shared utilities(toilets, laundry, occasional hotel stays) would make an effective temporary hack to save a lot of money.
2. Electricity - EUR 73/month
3. Trash collection- EUR 40/month
4. Home insurance (and home contents insurance) - EUR 40/month
5. Gas connection- EUR 24/month
6. Home Internet - EUR 70/month
7. Sewage - EUR 12/month
8. Property taxes
9. Window cleaning - EUR 12/2 months.
Ofcourse, they’re are all in a way “quality of life” costs. But, if I were to optimise for money, I could imagine living in a motorhome, pay my EUR 42/month gym fees and use the gym daily in addition to other shared utilities and avoid all those micro costs.
Everything comes with trade-offs, but it is worthwhile to think about alternative options for alternative priorities.
On a serious note: proper housing is a bit more than a bed. You need good ventilation, heating or cooling, a toilet/shower, etc...
But "a car" isn't the solution. I've seen some very nice looking van conversions that look merely cramped, but at least manage to fit in a proper bed, a food preparation area, and basic hygiene stuff like a toilet.
Likewise for actual houses, "sustainable" isn't the same thing as "small": The new house I live in in Berlin needs around half the power to stay warm as the apartment in the UK a third its size that I rent out.
This means the one I live in stays warm from (as an annual average) slightly less than the body heat of the two occupants.
I think we're not tackling the root cause in this whole discussion. People having to bottom their lifestyle because of debt.
A lot of debt is avoidable, for example student debt, if you live in a country with a well built education system. Owning a house could also made be more affordable.
It's a pitty that in the US half op people still seem to be voting for the most capitalistic side.
Its totally feasable in an emergency situation or if you just want to live like this.
But otherwise? its not okay. Peple want save spaces. A toilet at night, a bed. And not random poeple looking into your car and not shitting on the side of a street.
Edit: I agree single-family homes are insane, the solution is affordable apartments close to transit, not the rugged individualism of people living in cars.
Where do you want to draw the line between "everyone needs big properties" and "living off your car should be considered as adequate housing"?
[1] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
People don’t want to be in an empty house in a cheap place, it’s cheap for a reason.
And, uh, the only resource that "big properties" exhausts is density. If you don't mind having to drive half an hour to get to town, there's plenty of room.
Societies are obsessed with economic (amount of dollars) performance and the competition between and inside countries. Which on this level [1] is sick and unsustainable. The economy makes lots of money for the sake of making lots of money and for competition exploiting the livelihood of common people, sucking lots of surcharge in advance for the most basic necessities of a human being like knowledge and place to live (lack of those is social if not literal suicide), driving up competition and prices, that drives competition and payments in advance (debt) even further, in a sick downward loop. Exploiting people for extra profit for few that they have no idea how to spend so are panicing what to do with it calling investment, but more like a nervous jumping from here to there in haste, shaking the economy apart slowly in speculational rampage. People making up the society are getting to be a wreck this way or the other (as taking part of the nerve wrecking race or by left behind to rot). It is held together still somehow, but how long? Does not seem sustainable at all. It was better not being part of this humanity. This way. But what else? Could I be a magpie instead perhaps? That sounds much better idea that this high pace nervous struggling called human life. Especially when we had a better choice if we were not so damn competitive all, I mean all the time.
[1] Competition is unavoidable with our finite resources and is highly beneficial on a sustainable level