3 ms·
While I see some of your point, it goes without saying that vanlife or smaller dwellings will still have maintenance and overhead. You can trade the HOA for gas
by mym1990 6y ago
While I see some of your point, it goes without saying that vanlife or smaller dwellings will still have maintenance and overhead. You can trade the HOA for gas costs and campground fees(across the US at least unless you're on public land). The vehicle will breakdown, the vehicle will get broken into, etc, etc...
With a more remote workforce now on the long term horizon, why not just move to a cheaper city rather completely jumping off the proverbial cliff?
(This comment is coming from someone who is considering van life and I have also spent some extended periods of time working and living out of my vehicle).
- akudha 6y agoYeah, true. But there is a big difference between maintaining a three bedroom house (or apartment) and a tiny house. Van life is probably much harder (just guessing, I haven't done it), so it will probably not be as widespread as tiny houses. Remote work might not be possible for everyone. Personally, moving to a cheaper city would be my first choice, followed by tiny house. All of these have pros and cons. But for many people in their 20s/30s, buying a house might never be an option at all, simply because they can't afford it. Unless progressive policies are implemented, we can expect major housing crisis soon. People want their home's value to continuously increase, they see their home as an investment first - instead of seeing it as a place to live, first. I dunno what the solution is, but I don't think this situation can continue.
- dredmorbius 6y agoA cheap home base + a van seems like a flexible option. You've got low overhead but the option to hit the road for on-location gigs or when the wanderlust kicks in. A co-housing arrangement might make the base more tractable.