3 ms·

I wouldn't call that being forced, I'd call that weighing your priorities and making a decision. Where I live, you can pay your own rent alone working a full t

I wouldn't call that being forced, I'd call that weighing your priorities and making a decision. Where I live, you can pay your own rent alone working a full time minimum wage job. If you're turning that down, the trade off isn't worth it. You would rather live in a densely packed place if it enables you to do professional work not available to you otherwise. It's always a trade off.

giantg2 5y ago
That seems to imply there are enough jobs in the area for the population. That might be true today, but in the prior decade it can be tough to find a minimum wage job with benefits.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > with benefits Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this? Why is anything? If a rural town doesn't have enough business to go around to support it's population, it shrinks. It becomes more rural. People make trade offs. Cities get denser. When it has enough business to support a larger population, it grows. When a city becomes unable to support it's population, it decays. People move away. There's an ebb and flow. But it is important to understand that nobody is being forced to do anything here, they're moving where their priorities are, no place is perfect, it's all about what you're willing to live with to get the benefits of where you live.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this?" Because we're talking about supporting oneself. You can't support yourself with a minimum wage job and paying healthcare out of pocket.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Yes you can. I literally live in a small community of people who mostly work minimum wage service jobs and support themselves just fine, have disposable income even. That's my whole point. If you live in an urban environment it is hard to see how someone could do it, I understand, but you need to understand just how much cheaper it is to live in a place where you're not competing with 100 people for a place to live. When your rent is 350 bucks a month you can 100% support yourself on 1000 bucks a month, paying for insurance out of pocket.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Not in my state. You can find rent at $350/month depending on the area and stuff. It's at least $450/month for health insurance, and that's with a $5k deductible, so you need a substantial savings. That leaves $200 per month for food, car (because it's rural), utilities, etc. Unlikely.
        betwixthewires 5y ago
        Do your options to live end at your state borders? "Not in my city" is the same thing on a smaller scale. We could take it to an absurd conclusion and say "let's just move to the jungle in the amazon and live for free, there's no traffic there either!" but that's not the point I'm making. Health insurance is a big sticking point, I'm not trying to downplay the overinflated cost at all, even where I live it's still a huge burden and consideration. Too many people do without it, but that's anywhere you go, city or rural town. I don't believe this is a distinction of living inside or outside of a city, if anything, working class people in cities are more likely to do without because of inflated housing cost, and there's more working class people in cities than outside of them. It's not easy living anywhere. But what negatives are you willing to live with for what positives?

giantg2 5y ago

That seems to imply there are enough jobs in the area for the population. That might be true today, but in the prior decade it can be tough to find a minimum wage job with benefits.

betwixthewires 5y ago
> with benefits Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this? Why is anything? If a rural town doesn't have enough business to go around to support it's population, it shrinks. It becomes more rural. People make trade offs. Cities get denser. When it has enough business to support a larger population, it grows. When a city becomes unable to support it's population, it decays. People move away. There's an ebb and flow. But it is important to understand that nobody is being forced to do anything here, they're moving where their priorities are, no place is perfect, it's all about what you're willing to live with to get the benefits of where you live.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Again, a trade off. Why are benefits sacrosanct when we talk about this?" Because we're talking about supporting oneself. You can't support yourself with a minimum wage job and paying healthcare out of pocket.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Yes you can. I literally live in a small community of people who mostly work minimum wage service jobs and support themselves just fine, have disposable income even. That's my whole point. If you live in an urban environment it is hard to see how someone could do it, I understand, but you need to understand just how much cheaper it is to live in a place where you're not competing with 100 people for a place to live. When your rent is 350 bucks a month you can 100% support yourself on 1000 bucks a month, paying for insurance out of pocket.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Not in my state. You can find rent at $350/month depending on the area and stuff. It's at least $450/month for health insurance, and that's with a $5k deductible, so you need a substantial savings. That leaves $200 per month for food, car (because it's rural), utilities, etc. Unlikely.
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        Do your options to live end at your state borders? "Not in my city" is the same thing on a smaller scale. We could take it to an absurd conclusion and say "let's just move to the jungle in the amazon and live for free, there's no traffic there either!" but that's not the point I'm making. Health insurance is a big sticking point, I'm not trying to downplay the overinflated cost at all, even where I live it's still a huge burden and consideration. Too many people do without it, but that's anywhere you go, city or rural town. I don't believe this is a distinction of living inside or outside of a city, if anything, working class people in cities are more likely to do without because of inflated housing cost, and there's more working class people in cities than outside of them. It's not easy living anywhere. But what negatives are you willing to live with for what positives?