4 ms·

Isn't it a lot cheaper to split rent with someone else who lives in the same bed as you? And to cook for two instead of one? The way I see it, the only way bein

by aianus 10y ago

Isn't it a lot cheaper to split rent with someone else who lives in the same bed as you? And to cook for two instead of one? The way I see it, the only way being single is cheaper is if you live with family for free.

speeder 10y ago
I don't have a job (never had), right now I don't have any contract either. I don't have any income, but I do have debt (including unpaid rents for when I lived away from my parents, in a "startup boom city"), I need expensive medicine (about 100 USD month in a country where mininum wage is 300 USD), who do you think is paying for all that? It is not the government, because I don't even get unemployment benefits, because I was never employed legally in first place.
h0p3 10y ago
You are correct about it being cheaper to share the costs of living. However, relationships generally have unique costs we should take into account. You have to invest your time in people (time you might otherwise spend on yourself). Many people feel compelled to spend money in relationships, especially to find and impress the kind of mate they desire. That isn't to say there aren't unique costs in being single either. The point is that relationships aren't obviously as cost-efficient as they may seem at first glance. Sometimes they require real sacrifice.
adpoe 10y ago
That's true. But finding a stable romantic partner who you're willing to move in with, and live with, + share all your personal space with is still very hard when you have little time/money, right? (And that applies to both sexes.) And moreover - finding someone you really love and care for and want to move in with is hard even when you're rich. Just look at all the dating sites and services catering to matchmaking for the very wealthy. We might say --> the less time/money you have, the harder it gets. And when all your time is going to career + you're in debt... it's a bad combo for the dating pool, for both sexes.

by aianus 10y ago

speeder 10y ago

I don't have a job (never had), right now I don't have any contract either. I don't have any income, but I do have debt (including unpaid rents for when I lived away from my parents, in a "startup boom city"), I need expensive medicine (about 100 USD month in a country where mininum wage is 300 USD), who do you think is paying for all that? It is not the government, because I don't even get unemployment benefits, because I was never employed legally in first place.

h0p3 10y ago

You are correct about it being cheaper to share the costs of living. However, relationships generally have unique costs we should take into account. You have to invest your time in people (time you might otherwise spend on yourself). Many people feel compelled to spend money in relationships, especially to find and impress the kind of mate they desire. That isn't to say there aren't unique costs in being single either. The point is that relationships aren't obviously as cost-efficient as they may seem at first glance. Sometimes they require real sacrifice.

adpoe 10y ago

That's true. But finding a stable romantic partner who you're willing to move in with, and live with, + share all your personal space with is still very hard when you have little time/money, right? (And that applies to both sexes.) And moreover - finding someone you really love and care for and want to move in with is hard even when you're rich. Just look at all the dating sites and services catering to matchmaking for the very wealthy. We might say --> the less time/money you have, the harder it gets. And when all your time is going to career + you're in debt... it's a bad combo for the dating pool, for both sexes.