7 ms·
If you don’t pay rent, it’s pretty much $70k without rent anywhere else in the US but with better economic opportunities and better amenities. Omaha is cheaper
by brudgers 1y ago
If you don’t pay rent, it’s pretty much $70k without rent anywhere else in the US but with better economic opportunities and better amenities.
Omaha is cheaper but you can’t go mountain hiking or surfing or skiing on your day off.
- op00to 1y agoSure, Omaha doesn’t have surfing or mountains, but camping, hiking and other outdoor activities are cheaper, less crowded, and way more accessible. You’re not fighting for a campsite or dropping $50 just to sleep outside, and most hiking is free or near-free. No $25 parking fees or permit lotteries just to walk a trail. And saying $70k goes far in the Bay Area if you don’t pay rent is kind of ridiculous. Almost no one lives rent-free. Every well-paid software engineer I know out there is trying to get out. They’re all burned out by housing costs, crowds, and the grind. Amenities don’t mean much if you can’t afford to enjoy them.
- ghaff 1y agoI mean, even an hour west of Boston, there's a ton of hiking/canoeing/etc. mostly with free or cheap parking (have a free parking pass for state stuff). Mostly just do day-trips so not sure what camping spots run. But there's a ton of cheap/free stuff. No, it's not Yosemite though have a pass for national parks as well but plenty of nice stuff.
- brudgers 1y agoAlmost no one lives rent-free. Most 17 year olds do.
- brudgers 1y agoDispersed camping in National Forests is typically free. Likewise BLM land. There is a lot of both in California. And because public land is your land, permission is usually not required. Is the Bay area perfect? For me, no. I don’t live there. I live somewhere better that’s within driving day trip distance. But if I was young, it would be a different story.