
Making Poverty Fashionable to Millennials - riverlong
https://jayriverlong.github.io/2020/08/08/poverty.html
======
lalos
It's interesting seeing how humans are deciding to forgo one of the most
innate patterns of life itself, passing their own genes via these phenomenons.
It's almost as if it's a 'invisible hand' regulating the population by
cornering people to prefer an achievable amount of pleasure (retire early,
travel, etc) by trading it for not having offspring. This also relates to all
the news about the rise of 'despair deaths'. No jobs, no way to ensure
offspring a quality life, therefore game over for those genes. It is a big
claim that these communities don't have kids, I would want more evidence of
that before jumping to conclusions but if that's the case it's pretty crazy to
read about.

~~~
cheschire
Is it not inherently part of that animal pattern to only procreate until the
resources become a limitation? Maybe the Wachowskis were wrong, and humanity
isn’t a disease that keeps spreading and growing.

~~~
nordsieck
> Is it not inherently part of that animal pattern to only procreate until the
> resources become a limitation?

Most animals don't self limit - their environment limits them instead.

~~~
anon9001
How can I tell if I'm self limiting or if I'm being environmentally limited?

~~~
nordsieck
> How can I tell if I'm self limiting or if I'm being environmentally limited?

Are you voluntarily having fewer kids than you physically could, or did you
starve to death?

~~~
stevenicr
If you fear your kids would starve or otherwise have a terrible life, and you
voluntarily do not inseminate - I think it could be argued that you are
volunteering - however I think it's a reaction to the environment and a
calculated view of what's to come.

~~~
tmn
That's a self limiting decision. It's easy to rationalize yes

------
akhilcacharya
This is bubble talk. I don't know anybody that went to my undergrad that is
remotely interested in any of these except remote work, which was promised to
everyone as soon as broadband became available to common people in the '90s.
Poor folks aren't the ones blogging about van life, they're the ones that
_live in their cars in Menlo Park_. Meanwhile, the classmates that didn't
leave my state have either already purchased houses or are planning to within
the next year. Mind you these aren't rich folks, these are folks making $75k a
year at best, half of what a Princeton CS grad would make. I've talked to them
about FIRE'ing before and got a blank look on their face. The only thing they
do is max out their 401k, if that.

This isn't a case of "resource constraints" making poverty fashionable. It's a
case of out of touch elites trying desperately to either "rough it" for the
sake of the experience they never had or to aggressively retire at the age of
30. The median student loan debt burden is closer to $0 than $100k, and while
growing and maintaining inter-generational wealth is a massive problem for
communities of color because of persistent housing discrimination, I really
don't see these folks represented in the communities OP's article mentions.

..that is, of course, if this isn't a partially GPT-3 generated blog as
speculated here [0] but there do seem to be active responses from the author,
so it just appears to be pseudonymous.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23952750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23952750)

------
giorgioz
I have been a digital nomad for 8 years of my life and my partner and I (also
digital nomad for 2+ years) had actively decided to become parents and have a
2 years old daughter. We do live as expats in Budapest where the cost/quality
of living ratio is better with a foreign salary. I did attend a couple of FIRE
meetups in Budapest last year.

I think the article is discussing a lot of real problems but is assuming too
much cause/effect rather than just correlation.

I think many of these movements make sense now BECAUSE travel is easier and
millenials are not marrying or are having less kids anyway.

The FIRE movement is quite helpful anyway to start to manage your savings and
debt. There is a lot of exchange of knowledge about ETF and passive investing.
In the line of the lifestyle blog
[https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/) By Retire
Early most people intend actually "Retire Early from a job you dislike" and
keep working on something you enjoy.

I'm from Italy which with Japan is one of the countries in the world with the
steepest population decline. Fast population decline with an older population
is a though new challenge we'll have to face consciounsly soon.

~~~
galfarragem
A bit off topic: isn't it strange that many people _choose_ to live on
countries like Hungary, that media portrays as being the gross ones in the EU
context? Something doesn't seem right here.

~~~
cko
Not sure what you mean.

I semi-retired early, and I currently live in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. I saw a
(uploaded 5 years ago) Youtube video that mentioned the city as a place rife
with corruption and poverty and people somehow scrape by. I showed the
girlfriend, who grew up here, and we were both confused.

On the other hand, I don't know why people _choose_ to live in a country with
high property taxes and healthcare costs and mandatory driving. As an American
I love the US but feel relaxed where I am now.

A friend once asked me why I didn't move to London instead. Because I grew up
near NYC and it's like the same thing, that's why.

~~~
petre
How did you get residency? Another guy from AZ (?) was denied entry into
Romania after overstaying his visa and then he moved to Moldova and now the
unrecognuzed PMR, aka Transnistria after trying other EU countries. He wrote a
book about the country and runs this eccentric but also sometimes funny blog:

[https://kingofromania.com](https://kingofromania.com)

------
sxp
> Having children is very expensive, so it’s hard to make that work with FIRE.
> On the other hand, van life and tiny houses are logistically prohibitive to
> having children.

This is debatable. If neither parent is working and they have the time and
knowledge to homeschool their kids, having children becomes cheaper since the
parents don't need daycare, a nanny, an expensive private school, etc.

People of all social classes have been having kids since the dawn of humanity.
Kids can be as cheap or as expensive as you want if you don't have to worry
about working 9-to-5 at the same time.

~~~
schwartzworld
So, kids can be cheap if you don't have to worry about working?

How do you feed your children in this scenario where neither parent works? How
about medical bills?

I'm not saying a lot of people couldn't spend less on childcare etc, but the
ability to do it without working assumes a certain level of financial comfort.

That's not even taking into account the added cost of leaving the workforce
for several years. I know several parents who found it difficult to return to
their former fields.

~~~
sxp
> How do you feed your children in this scenario where neither parent works?
> How about medical bills?

FIRE. If your life plan involves having kids, you'll need higher FIRE number,
but it's still possible. Medicial bills are always the hardest part of FIRE
since you can't plan for them and they have an unlimited ceiling. But you can
aim for a basic insurance plan on Obamacare or move to a country with a modern
medical insurance system.

------
P4wl0w
I agree with the underlying conclusion but there is one thing you said but did
not properly reason about:

> On the other hand, van life and tiny houses are logistically prohibitive to
> having children.

This is just not true. Only here in the wealthy west people think they need a
big house to have children. In the rest of the world you will see whole
families living in one tiny room together.

Also there is a lot of valid reasons not to put children into this world
without being part of some lifestyle romance.

~~~
riverlong
In the rest of the world, you see whole families living in one room together
_because they are poor_. Virtually no-one chooses to live like this. Case in
point, as soon as such people get money, they upgrade to larger houses.

------
an_opabinia
These lifestyles, as the author seems to point towards and not consummate, are
the consequence of millennials being lonely, not poor.

~~~
Bootwizard
I would say you're wrong. I know this is anectdata but I'm a non-single
millenial, and my girlfriend and I have decided to never have kids because we
value our own happiness and wellbeing too much to sacrifice it raising a
child. We would be happy to live this type of lifestyle.

Edit: and it has nothing to do with our income. We're both 6 figure engineers.

~~~
polotics
May I suggest your understanding of the word "happiness" will change as you
age? My happiness at 25 is not the same as at 50. As a male I guess society is
on your side and you can be a late father if you find a willing younger
partner. For your girlfriend however it's no dice: at 50 and childless I
assume earlier happiness may taste different.

~~~
ReactiveJelly
This is a big "may" to put on someone else.

------
abellerose
Affordable homes aren't being built for Millennials. I predict there will be
assisted suicide by the time most turn 60 and people will just turn to that
service. I also assume the generations to come will look back on this time
period as how the generations before the Millennials really threw a group of
people into despair for their own well being.

~~~
BuckRogers
That should come sooner than later. I’m 38 and a Millennial but definitely
feel more like a Xennial. I’ve “done well”, never given a dime, no help or
network, and have worked a tax paying job since I was 12, put myself through
college with 30 hours a week work (night shifts at stores etc) and my net
worth including my 401K today is about 200K. That’s saving, hard, for a very
long time. I’m still far behind where I need to be financially, will never
retire, and would definitely consider it today. The only reason I stick around
is to outlive a few people that I don’t want to give the satisfaction that I
died. I’m a petty man, one with no real future, but to continue making
employers rich. I do want to be part of defeating my class enemies though, the
investment class. I often say I understand the opioid crisis- those who died
may have been the smart ones. They knew.

There’s really only one way forward and it needs to start now, worker owned
cooperatives. No more capitalism, it isn’t working. While there will still be
a place for capitalism, most businesses are proven business models. There’s no
reason Google shouldn’t be owned by its employees. Let alone 7-Eleven. Once
people get a taste of democracy in the workplace, they’ll demand it out of
their government.

~~~
gremlinsinc
You sound a bit like me, a little more in my depressed days though.

I'm a lib socialist, so worker coops are my jazz.

I want to start a virtual union/commune that say everyone pays $100/month.

We use that to buy real estate rentals, eventually we launch all types of
businesses from gas stations to grocery stores to a full amazon + aws
competitor.

All union-owned. All workers are union members, and anyone who wants to join
just joins. Maybe every hour and $ spent/invested = 1 share in the union. Each
share = 1 vote and is used to calculate payouts for UBI (if we get to that
point).

Initially all the cash our businesses bring in would go into a fund for
healthcare. Our own single-payer plan if you will. We can create our own
insurance companies as well in most states, maybe eventually we take over
medicaid/medicare and buy up some hospitals and drug companies so we own the
whole health supply chain. We could lobby congress for funds as well to up our
health fund, and free up our cash on hand to pay out UBI.

Could also have some sort of credit card account with reward points, that you
could use at sub-union companies... Say a union member starts a worker-coop,
and decides to pay a 10% tax to the union, it'd be a sub-union company. Maybe
union members would also get discounts at the shop if it was ecommerce or
something, and be encouraged to shop there or help them promote their
business.

The key is creating something that benefits all, encourages each other to help
each other, and is ran somewhat democratically, and of course is self-
sufficient. Also CEO caps for all companies under the umbrella.

~~~
CapricornNoble
>>>Maybe every hour and $ spent/invested = 1 share in the union. Each share =
1 vote

Heh, you should check out this story:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl5fCxw6NJY&t=621s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl5fCxw6NJY&t=621s)

All it takes is one whale entering such a system to up-end it.

~~~
gremlinsinc
You could set limits on yearly credits that can be earned. To keep it fair and
balanced. Like maybe 40 hours * 52 weeks, so that you can't exceed what a
normal employee would get. Employees, can get 2x that much, cause they can
also double dip by investing their own $$.

------
aogaili
I disagree, while financial aspect is important but it is not the only factor
why folks choose these kind of lifestyles.

First, having a kid these days might not actually be a good idea, with 7
billion people and counting, uncertaining future job market and the huge
expense required to raise a functional kid in modern society. Previous
generations never had those obligation or constrains and kids were able to
contribute to their farms/income from early age.

Second, technology allowed for lifestyles that were not even feasible in the
past, it is really obvious and I don't think I need to elaborate on that.

Last, humans were nomads settling.

To sum up not everyone wants to live the mainstream lifestyle. So it could be
due to preference and choice rather than financial pressures only.

------
krrishd
reminded me of the “premium mediocre” view of millennials coping with downward
mobility [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-
mediocre-l...](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-
life-of-maya-millennial/)

~~~
riverlong
Definitely. The "premium mediocre" stuff has been on my mind a lot, and I'm
sure it's conceptually related. "Downward mobility" is a good term here.

------
anm89
I love how the narrative is spun on these things.

It's not individuals making decisions about how to live their own lives.

Its they, the all encompassing shadowy cabal who wants to tempt naive young
people into living in vans, and preposterous less then 5000 sqft houses, with
their secret goal of impoverishing everybody.

Or maybe there are just people who prefer those things? Surely occams razor
prefers the shadowy cabal though...

It's like an exaggerated version of the peasents from the Monty python sketch
on the anarcho syndacislist commune.

.

------
mdragonpkf
Powerful post. Unfortunately no potential solutions are explored. Ideas? Is it
a matter of figuring out how to shift/part wealth from the ultra wealthy of
the world? Or develop a means of building wealth at lower costs? Of course
limited land is still an issue. Even if you got cheap land in a remote area,
you're likely to be disconnected from the world without running water,
electricity, and internet.

~~~
reducesuffering
Affordable housing and health care is really what it comes down to. Food is as
cheap, inflation-adjusted, as ever. Quality, reliable, transportation is as
cheap as ever. College education is free in many places of the world, but a
luxury in the US with the way it's taught. Employers are coming around to the
fact that it's not a good signal any more, so the reasons to go ~50k+ in debt
for a questionable degree are ceasing. The rest of millennial spend are
generally luxuries. They can't afford to keep going with the conspicuous
consumption and status-signalling that other generations could. But that's not
what we should care about improving.

We need to start tackling the insane complexities of the US health system and
the complete failure of building regulations to provide an affordable place
for the next generation to live.

~~~
akhilcacharya
> College education is free in many places of the world, but a luxury in the
> US with the way it's taught.

Community college is extremely cheap and free in several states like
Tennessee. In state tuition at most state schools will run $30k max on the
remainder. Not cheap, but for the income gains...not expensive.

------
ThA0x2
Hilarious how entitled the author is. It's delusional to believe that
millennials, or anyone else for that matter, are owed living in some of the
most expensive cities on the planet.

So many people just BELIEVE that if you fumble through college, you're
magically owed an affordable, nice house/apartment in some of the most
desirable metros on the face of the planet.

~~~
arvinsim
Who do you think inculcated that narrative to millenials when they were young?

~~~
ThA0x2
Their parent's generation for sure, and the liberal educators at the time.

------
Tiktaalik
Lots of "fashionable" millennial hipster trend things were just normal stuff
that were bought by millennials because they were poor artists or working
class. eg. converse shoes, pabst blue ribbon, thrift finds.

Oh oh it's so ironic uh no it's stuff millennials can afford because they're
poor af.

------
brnt
Rent seeking capitalists have managed to work their way into every corner of
life. There _is_ no way for a significant portion of the population to produce
a personal surplus, because 'markets' will be quick to funnel this into ever
fewer pocket, thanks to the neoliberal tools they've managed to convince us
were necessary for 'business' to not be 'choked' by government. Two working
partners, working in well paying jobs in large cities, it doesn't matter,
you're not going to keep your surplus.

Apart from being lucky and be either born or get a lottery ticket into the
0.01%, the only way I see of building up your surplus (without expending your
body with working 80hrs+ for 40+ years) is checking out of usual patterns,
patterns that are still not being eaten up by rent seekers. Like a good job on
the perifery of your country rather than in/near commercial/industrial
centers. And vote labour, of course. In the end, only law can end rent
seeking, and for that, we need to stop believing the economy musnt be under
our control rather than the reverse.

~~~
ReactiveJelly
Isn't it possible to have a controlled economy that doesn't exploit people,
which is still capitalist within its bounds?

~~~
ManuelKiessling
I’m pretty sure that at least for some time, the system of “Soziale
Marktwirtschaft” (social market-economy) in Germany nailed that balance quite
well. It’s totally not my area of expertise, though.

Still, my gut feeling is that if someone capable would check the numbers, the
result would be that from the 1950s to at least the 1990s, the personal
economic situation for most Germans improved dramatically, while German
companies were extremely competitive and successful in comparison to the rest
of the world at the same time. Like, no need to exploit the former or
sacrifice the latter; it worked hand-in-hand.

