People have also “rented them out”.
Your point?
I do think the “hate toward red state flyover country” in this instance is partly a result of the way in which the question has been phrased. Here is a person who (oversimplifying) wants to stay in northern California SO BADLY that she will LIVE IN HER CAR in order to do so, and WHY DOESN’T SHE ‘JUST’ MOVE TO A CHEAPER PLACE GODDAMMIT? Well, for some people the answer, or part thereof, is “Because who the hell wants to live in a place that isn’t northern CA/a big urban area/liberal and diverse?”
But if you reverse the situation…now we have someone in West Virginia coal country, in a county where unemployment approaches 40 percent, who’s living out of a car, you’ll still have people saying “Well, why not move to a place where there are jobs?” And in this case you’ll still have people–different people, to be sure–saying “Yeah, but who the hell wants to live in a place that isn’t West Virginia/mostly rural/God-fearing and conservative?” I’ve certainly seen this perspective many times IRL and online; though I suspect it is not as common here on the SDMB as the opposite argument, it’s very real.
To me, it does seem like a false dichotomy, as you point out with the story of your daughter (Ithaca by chance?). There are IMHO quite a few very interesting cities and towns that provide a lot of what progressive urbanites will find appealing, if they would look beyond the most expensive and trendiest of cities (say, Seattle, coastal California, Boston, NYC, DC)–yes, you too can be happy in St. Paul, or Albuquerque, or hey, even Kansas City! I actually knew some people like this who moved from Chicago to Lubbock TX and lubbed it. Similarly, there are lots of communities with thriving economies that AREN’T overcrowded and insanely expensive where a conservative rural dweller can feel comfortable; again, if they’d give it a chance.
And FWIW I do agree that for most people in this kind of situation, not wanting to move has a lot more to do with family and friends connections, the uncertainty of whether moving will actually represent an improvement, the reality of limited resources, and the like, than it has to do with “refusing” to live somewhere other than where you live.
I am not living out of my car and I hope I never will be, but I am beginning a job search for various reasons, and relocation is a possibility. I recently looked into jobs with a company I’ve done a lot of freelance work with, only to discover that new fulltime employees must work in either TX, MD, or MA because that’s where the offices are. TBH I don’t really “want” to live in either TX or MA, and while I’d consider MD pretty strongly in a vacuum, one reality of my life right now is that my wife is chronically ill.
We have a lot of supports where we are now, but there’s only one city, maybe two, in the US where we’d also have automatic support if we moved there. That isn’t Baltimore. It would be fairly risky to move to a place where we would have no support. Doesn’t mean I’d rule it out–if no jobs come through in a place that makes sense, and the need for a new job remains high, damn right I’d consider it. But just to emphasize that there may be other considerations keeping people in places that on some level don’t make lots of sense.
True! I’ve often thought that living in Manhattan would be GREAT–if you had LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money.
My point is “people treat their animals like they are their children” is not a barrier to giving said animals away if those people cannot afford to take care of them.
I’ve known quite a few people who have chosen to make “living in a particular area” their top priority, whether because of family, support programs, cultural amenities, social, or other reasons. From their point of view, it’s non-negotiable. But, in reality, it’s totally voluntary.
If someone came to me and said, “Do you know somewhere I can move and get a job?”, my first question would be, “Do you have a criminal record?” If that person does not have a criminal record, I can name half-a-dozen places they can move to right now and be virtually guaranteed a job in the $25K-$32K range. It might be boring work, and they might have to work an overtime shift or two, but it won’t be physically or mentally demanding, requires no special degrees or education, and does not involve waiting tables. In most cases, local apartment rentals would be in the $900 to $1100 range.
And I’ll just second this. FTR, I have been an adjunct on several occasions at a local college (private, highly regarded). I got just over $6000 for a single course…this was very much on the high end for my geographic area. I was considered an employee, with SS deducted and a W2. It’s tough to imagine an adjunct in these parts making more than about $25K a year from adjuncting, and that’s without benefits.
On the bright side, I didn’t have to advise students or go to faculty meetings…
I’m not sure what’s sad about someone not wanting to live in a state that explicitly endorses discrimination against them, and where their life will not be safe if they stray outside of a few particular enclaves. The attitude of “it’s sad, the way these people have irrational hatred towards a perfectly good state just because it’s flyover country” doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when you consider that the state overwhelmingly passed a broad pro-discrimination bill in the house just a few years ago (the senate killed it in committee) and recently passed a narrow pro-discrimination bill allowing adoption agencies to discriminate however they want as long as it’s for a religious reason.
The obvious comment is that a college in San Jose is going to look better on her resume than one in Kansas - “flyover America” in general. And there may be family reasons for staying in CA.
The second part of the comment is frankly insulting to the person concerned. I don’t know the exact circumstances of this case, but worldwide the situation is that it is very difficult to get a foot in the academic world, especially on the arts side. Moving to Kansas (or Nebraska) puts her lower down the status scale among universities and bottom of the seniority at whichever new place she goes to. She could find a better-paying job where she is, but then she could pretty much forget any ideas of an academic career.
One of my friends spent several years “living out of her car” voluntarily. She’s always been a bit of a free spirit. She goes from organic farm to farm - doing migrant labor, making art, and doing handyman tasks. When in town she got housesitting gigs or stays with friends.
She created really nice living spaces inside her vans - enough room to sleep in and for her stuff. A camp stove to cook on.
She was able to live comfortably for years for about $10k a year as I understand it - enough for insurance, gas and food.
She’s going on sixty now, and gave it up a few years ago - more or less. She’s out right now doing it, but only for a few months before she heads back in.
It wouldn’t be how I would choose to live, but she wasn’t creating any problems for anyone else, she enjoyed it, and I wouldn’t call her neurotic or mentally ill…just way different priorities than middle class me with two kids and dogs and a drive for financial security.
Go back to the old Buffalo Springfield song “Stop, Children What’s That Sound” with the lines:
“Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away”
So someone thinks outside of California their are these Taliban style gangs going after gays, minorities, and persons having abortions is just that - paranoid. So paranoid it causes them to be irrational.
To be honest, a part of me envies that life. I always wanted to just live without any big worries of a house, car, or job. I have known similar people. Reminds me of that old song “King of the Road”.
“Trailer for sale or rent, rooms to let, fifty cents.
No phone, no pool, no pets, I ain’t got no cigarettes
Ah, but, two hours of pushin’ broom
Buys an eight by twelve four-bit room
I’m a man of means by no means, king of the road.”
The problem is what you said, financial security. What is she going to “retire” on? Has she even been paying into social security? What if she gets sick or injured? What if the van breaks down and needs expensive repairs?
And its the same thing for the woman and her husband in the OP. How will she be able to retire?
I have known similar people here in Kansas City who worked at a place like the auto plants. They had a “home” but it was maybe over an hours drive away so they basically parked a camper in the factory parking lot, worked all week, then drove it home on the weekends.
Similar here in Kansas City their is a trailer/camper park called Walnut Grovewith rates of about $30 a night. MANY people with temporary jobs such as tech people and even famous actors often stay there.
To me, it would be a nightmare. I think more of Janis Joplin - “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”. I got people depending on me. I can’t afford to lose.
The original story said she had $143K in student debt; the later story said $151K. And she’s in her fifties.
She ain’t retiring. Student loans aren’t dischargeable in bankruptcy, I believe. You think she’s got no big worries? She’s dug herself a deep, deep hole, and she won’t ever get out of it.
She’s going to be poor the rest of her days, her husband will live in a tent, the money will never be repaid fully and will be wasted. But at least she doesn’t have to live in Kansas.
She should name at least one of her dogs Toto.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know about that… most MBA programs are around 50-55 hours, and googling shows a LOT of 30-35 hour English masters with theses.
Here’s a fairly typical example of what I found:
http://www.fresnostate.edu/artshum/english/degrees-programs/masters/literature.html
Thank you for bringing it back to the honest fact that this woman has made some horrible life choices, as an adult. Yet, she’s being eccentric by refusing to ask for forbearance on the student loans and choosing to live out of her car. I don’t have any empathy for her and I wish that journalists would be more responsible than by using the example of one eccentric woman as an example of a ‘housing crisis.’
A lot of us don’t have our dream jobs. My once quite enjoyable job has degenerated into a job from Hell over the past 6 years, so I’m job hunting. But, I understand I’m at the age when taking on $150,000 in debt would be ridiculous. I’m sure she enjoyed the carefree life of a student in her 40’s, but that’s not realistic in the real world.
She didn’t get a PhD, she got a master’s… she’s pretty much forgotten any ideas of a serious academic career anyway. That’s my point- she’s not a professor or serious academic, she’s just someone the university hires part-time to teach a few classes.
She’d be better off using that master’s degree to get a high school teaching job somewhere, where it has value, rather than trying to make it as an academic with a master’s degree in academia today.
Believe me, I’m sympathetic; I myself quit my job in the summer of 2002 (midst of the recession) and went back to graduate school because I wanted to make a career change at the time when the recession lifted. But I took reasonable risks; I had enough cash saved to pay for my first (and most expensive) semester outright, and to pay for a big chunk of the second one. I had a housing situation lined up- basically rented a room from a bachelor buddy in his house. And I had a backup plan- I could always fall back on my previous career if I had to- my career change was more of a shift of 15-20 degrees rather than a 90 degree turn. And it was still terrifying at times, especially in that 6 months after getting the 2nd master’s degree before I found a job. (and it also kicked a LOT of ass being a full time college student again at 30)
But it sounds like she didn’t do any of those backstop kinds of things, and is buried under a pile of debt and is living somewhere with a high cost of living and disproportionately expensive housing, and isn’t working the right kind of job for her educational credentials. She really needs to rethink what she’s doing and where she’s doing it.
But if she dies owing $150,000 dollars to the bank, who’s the real chump? Her, or the bank?
She is. I don’t want to spend my time in retirement paying student loans.
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that her original intent was to earn a PhD – which, obviously, could have opened more doors towards an academic career. it’s possible that she burned out after getting the Masters, it’s possible that she wasn’t able to get into a PhD program. We’ve spent three pages in this thread speculating about the additional details of her situation, beyond what was contained in that article.
That said, I know a number of people (including most of my circle of friends from college) who have PhDs, and the refrain I often hear from some of them is that there are more PhDs in their fields than there are positions for them.
My guess (and I admit, I’m speculating as much as anyone) is that going back to school, and pursuing the education that she did, seemed like a good idea to her at the time, and may well have even been a decision that was supported by academic advisors, and her family and friends. It may well also be that she was unrealistic about her ability to finish the program she started on, as well as her ability to get out from under her student loan debt once she finished. It’s easy to criticize those choices with hindsight.
Believing that the Kansas state legislature passed and pushed the legislation that was widely reported is not paranoia, it’s being capable of reading basic English. Believing my friends who have been hassled in small towns, oftn by LEOs, even in states that don’t pass pro-discrimination legislation is not paranoia either. Being cautious about moving to a state that’s already hostile to LGBT people when the Federal government is working to remove as many protections as possible is also not paranoia, but prudence.
She could do income based repayment. It would be ~10% of her income. Not 50%, not 100%, 10%. And during her retirement years it would be less than 10% as the calculation is a bit more complex than that. If she’s poor in retirement it won’t be because of 10% of her income being shaved, it’ll be because all she has is SSI and nothing else.