First world problems/opportunities . . . the underlying story here is that nearly none of this is possible without a well funded and run state. Riding 4500 miles across country, collecting sponsorships, going to a strangers house from CL for a fan. . . all speaks to road, police and the like allowing people to survive/thrive because there is general stability around them. These people experience none of the poverty problems that come from a lack of choices.
Then the article follows up on what Price thinks about his life after he read the book Payne Hollow and his marriage broke up. "'I like being able to do what I want to do,' said Price, who pays $100 a year for his land. 'I don’t believe in houses or mortgages. Who in their right mind would spend their lifetime paying for a building they never get to spend time in because they are always working?'"
So my question about that is, does he believe in a father supporting his young children growing up? I sure do. I can think of a lot of lifestyle adjustments I might make to simplify my life if I had no minor children, but while my children are young, I'm very well going to live with them and participate in supporting them financially. After all, I had the choice at the beginning about whether or not to have children, but my children had no choice about whether they were born to a dad who steps up or a dad who checks out and forgets about them.
Remember, he doesn't tell you what he makes a year, just what he needs to make to survive.
This article is silly to be talking about poverty on purpose. These guys are living really frugal, not in poverty.
According to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP...
64 out of 180 counted countries in this world have an average income of $5,000 USD (equivalence) or lower.
I don't get how this is worth of an NBC article. Perhaps since I'm used to a whole different socio-economic context; I live in Mexico, where the minimum wage is below $2,000 USD a year, so I don't find $5,000 a year to qualify as "poor" or to be anything impressive.
I know many cases of people who live with way less than that, including myself; I've never had a formal job, and have always lived from one or two days of freelance work each month, or from schoolarships. Sometimes I go for a full month with around $300 USD.
I agree with Gexla in that this is silly at best.
Edit: Looking at some EC website [1], these are the countries with median gross annual income < EUR 10,000:
Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania
1. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index....
so I can safely guess Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_...
Sure, I could compromise on all of that. Couchsurf. Use the library (both for its books and its computers). Become a better cook to make more with less. Do other things with friends. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
But the mere term "compromise" implies "loss of originally-expected value", and there comes a point where I could have all the time in the world and not enjoy spending time on anything. Back to the OP, I question what Price does all day when he's not working odd jobs. I almost expected him to be an artist or novelist or somesuch.
"Why must I adhere to society's unwritten rules? I'm better than that. I'll never join the bourgeoisie!"
Those were my sentiments in my early 20's. But I was being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. It was a knee-jerk coping mechanism, not the articulation of well-reasoned philosophy.
I was very immature. As if I would commit my life to forgoing and perhaps even scorning the richness borne of productivity in favor of squaller! Why would I want to punish myself in such a way?
I believe the same holds true for many people like the subjects of this article. They are bright people, but the messages they articulate about society and its inequities and injustices are riddled with serious contradictions.
You can be an empathetic, generous, and extraordinarily charitable human being without imposing poverty on yourself.
The girl claims to live on $1000 a month in NYC, and she only pays $135 a week for an extra room in a crap neighborhood.
Leaving her, with $540 to live on... In NYC, for 30 days. Now, I'm sure this is possible, but she is sitting there on a macbook. Welp, there goes your budget for the entire year! And this article claims less is making these people happier. Not really, and they are just exploiting their so called frugality to make a buck from selling their story. Of course they wouldn't be lying about collecting welfare and hypocritically supporting #OWS.
TL;DR The article fails to mention these people are also exploiting the system collecting welfare.
When I formerly lived in a tent in West Virginia, I knew lots of people who lived in similar "intentional poverty". Many of these people had seasonal jobs. Where I worked as a whitewater rafting guide. None of us had to pay for housing beyond just having a tent because we set up on the land owned by the outfitter. At the end of the season, half the guys went off to become ski instructors, often at places that similarly put them up for the winter. Many of the guys who had been doing this for a decade or more had enough cash saved up each year to go to Belize where they had similar arrangements for free housing and would raft for fun with raft guide friends in Belize.
During the summers I lived there, I actually could eat and drink purely off tips from customers and didn't touch my meager salary which all went into the bank. I banked enough during the summer that I could easily have purchased skis and hit the slopes as a job for the winter if I chose or live in a tent in Belize. The simple life ain't that hard if you live in the outdoors.
-- Eric Beck
It is possible to live quite frugally. Some of these people are, as the article states, getting help from other people; that doesn't mean they are getting help from the government. BTW, only one person mentioned OWS.
Regarding the Macbook. . .you assumed these people started with absolutely no possessions. I assumed they brought some possessions with them, including the Macbook. Nowhere does she state - or is it impled - that she bought it after beginning her voluntary poverty. Also, even poor people - whether the poverty is voluntary or involuntary - receive gifts. In case of voluntary poverty - where friends and family are most likely not poor - it is quite possible to receive a Macbook as a gift.
I've known people who've done this - and are still doing it. Just as the article stated, most, if not all, of them came from relatively privileged lives and always had the option of returning - or at least moving up from relative poverty.
You have the absolute minimum income in a highly expensive city, so it only makes sense for you to have the best?
MacBook Air? Bottom end refurbished model costs $900. That's a dollar a day for 2.5 years; in NY you can recycle soda cans for $0.05/each, so 20 found cans a day keeps her tolerably up to date. There's enough free wifi around to manage connectivity.
Extreme frugality is viable if you put your mind to it. Our advertising-driven culture is guilty of making most think it isn't.
EDIT:I'm also not on any form of welfare or food stamps or the like. I live entirely without state assistance, happily.
Plus do not confuse living with living, as in what you would accept is likely far different than what they accept.
And how exactly do you know this is the case?
You don't know what you're talking about.
I like the concept, but it's just so obvious there is more behind their income. The other guy vacations to hawaii to surf, but doesn't mention what he does for income.
