Living on $5,000 a year, on purpose: Meet America's 'intentional poor'

Agree. I have friends who have lived this lifestyle for a long time in the U.S. and Europe, and you just can't live the same way here in Brazil, for example. This freegan stuff just doesn't work here. My friends squatted in the U.S. and ate fresh food from dumpsters. Here, the squatters are really poor people or crack addicts. Here, there's hardly any good food thrown out, and it is all quickly scavenged by really hungry homeless people. And my U.S. friends say they are anarchists. Sorry, you can only live like this in the U.S. because of the stability and prosperity that is around you.

We don't know the situation, but, if the entire family moved to Oregon, and, he sold his 6 bedroom house in KY, there may have been a decent amount of equity transferred into either a new house, or, turned into cash; so for all we know, he let her have the mostly-paid-off house and walked away.

Remember, he doesn't tell you what he makes a year, just what he needs to make to survive.

Good point. He could still publish his wilderness zine in a country with a currency that had a higher purchasing power parity than that of the U.S.A. and do odd jobs in that county for extra spending money if he wanted.

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.

What country is that?

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....

The more pleasures you have the more masters you serve.

You can move. But the most important part is to not be stopped by trivialities such as being "stuck" at the wrong latitude. Most people could move toward the equator for $500 or less if they put their mind to it.

I don't know about the OWS and NYC kids, but I highly doubt Dan Price (the guy at the top living in a hobbit hole) is on 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.

I did read the article; I don't know you jump to the assumption that they are collecting welfare. If you know otherwise, please provide the citation.

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.

I'm not sure why you would term this fabrication. She could've had that macbook from her days in Chicago (after all, as the article mentions - she only moved to NYC last year). Nowhere does it say that all her possessions were purchased with that $1000/month budget - just that her current living expenses are within that number.

A strong accusation with little to base it on.

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.

There are probably a good number who had the expensive items before they decided upon this lifestyle.

Plus do not confuse living with living, as in what you would accept is likely far different than what they accept.

> The article fails to mention these people are also exploiting the system collecting welfare.

And how exactly do you know this is the case?

Nah, it's possible if you think the way poor people think. They get a second/third hand macbook from ebay for $200-300.

No, what's fishy is the $135/week rent, even a small room can cost more than that--unless it's a really, really bad area. But you can live on $540, for a while. Food can be very cheap in the bodegas and the rest can largely be controlled by only getting what's really needed. Of course a hospital visit will set you back 1-5 years of living expenses but that's different.