This Is Your Life in the Midwest(medium.com)
medium.com
This Is Your Life in the Midwest
https://medium.com/@ehnertm/this-is-your-life-in-the-midwest-935b97b6c50#.hj8h57jze
36 comments
The author wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but he has a point about the appeal of a low cost of living, family-oriented lifestyle in fly over country. I'm from the Midwest and this sounds like several of my friends' lives. I made a different choice than they did. After college I moved to Seattle, Silicon Valley and then New York, working at several big name tech firms. I made decent money and kept my costs as low as a could within reason. Silicon Valley and engineering culture is a lot of hype. After 15 years of working in tech and living in high cost places, I occasionally toy with the idea of cashing out and moving back home into a big, reasonably priced house, starting a family, and living off my small fortune. I suppose you always crave what you don't have.
Having read the inspiration article, I chuckled at the seemingly satiristic tone.
Then I read this one and cried. There's a lot of truth here (I live in WI).
>You try out cost of living calculations and they say you'd need to make 250% your current salary on the west coast. Annoyed at the seemingly impossible move, you tell yourself they'll be rioting over water shortages soon anyways. After all, do you even want to be near the coast when the oceans rise?
And this. This is so true.
Then I read this one and cried. There's a lot of truth here (I live in WI).
>You try out cost of living calculations and they say you'd need to make 250% your current salary on the west coast. Annoyed at the seemingly impossible move, you tell yourself they'll be rioting over water shortages soon anyways. After all, do you even want to be near the coast when the oceans rise?
And this. This is so true.
I didn't feel that the author was really from the Midwest. The inspiration article felt like a self-mockery which is what made it special... but the Burger King stuff was where this really started to sound like the outside looking in. I felt the need to apply some actual midwestern(Detroit, MI) thoughts/barbs. =)
Author here. I'm actually from Milwaukee WI and currently living in KC.
This was taking parts of people's lives I know and have met and throwing on a huge pile of satire.
This was taking parts of people's lives I know and have met and throwing on a huge pile of satire.
So get rid of the camper and ATVs, take 1500 sq feet off the house, REALLY evaluate if your wife's job covers the costs of it, drive an old car, at least buy frozen food at Sam's/Costco rather than Burger King and it's quite different, isn't it?
Kids' college? They'll have to do it themselves. Hopefully, there's one near enough to work out, or they can qualify for scholarships.
But, of course, drinking beer at work outweighs all that...
Kids' college? They'll have to do it themselves. Hopefully, there's one near enough to work out, or they can qualify for scholarships.
But, of course, drinking beer at work outweighs all that...
I'm confused because the article is written by Max Ehnert who from looking at his linkedin has only been working as a software dev for roughly two years. He's painting the picture of a life he hasnt lived?
It's a satire article not completely reflective of my own life but more of a mix of people I know. (I'm the author)
Ah. Thanks for clarification. Sorry I was just confused. I assumed that but it seemed many took it as your story.
No problem. I added a footer in the article stating it's satire.
Damn, this is even more depressing than the other one.
Apparently the secret to happiness is not having kids. And not spending more than you make. Actually that last one is true.
Apparently the secret to happiness is not having kids. And not spending more than you make. Actually that last one is true.
Both are true. Having kids basically dooms you for 20 years; raising kids as a single parent is a miserable task. And before you say anything about married couples raising kids, remember that 50% of first marriages end in divorce, so the odds are not good. And that number doesn't include people who just stick together in unhappy marriages. If you can find someone really great for you and you can find a situation where you can have kids without it ruining your life, then you're really lucky. Most parents I've seen have a miserable time of it.
Not spending more than you make is a big, big factor too, that many Americans seem to have a big problem with. From what I can tell, they simply do not understand the concept, at all. They basically seem to think they "deserve" a certain lifestyle and level of spending, and just do that, regardless of how much actual money is coming in, and simply refuse to look at ways to economize or maximize the value they get for their spending (such as by not eating out all the time because they're too lazy to cook).
Not spending more than you make is a big, big factor too, that many Americans seem to have a big problem with. From what I can tell, they simply do not understand the concept, at all. They basically seem to think they "deserve" a certain lifestyle and level of spending, and just do that, regardless of how much actual money is coming in, and simply refuse to look at ways to economize or maximize the value they get for their spending (such as by not eating out all the time because they're too lazy to cook).
People are taking these articles too seriously. Obviously, this is very tongue in cheek.
Wow! My life in the Minneapolis strongly resembles my former life in Seattle. I have walkable/bikeable neighborhods, good local restaraunts and food coops/farmers markets, etc etc
The problem isn't the Midwest, it is suburbia. I've know contractrs at MS like in the article. Plenty of folks in Boston or Northern Virginia or RTP are living in the far suburbs and working in unsatisfying jobs they aren't good at... nothing to do with the Midwest.
The problem isn't the Midwest, it is suburbia. I've know contractrs at MS like in the article. Plenty of folks in Boston or Northern Virginia or RTP are living in the far suburbs and working in unsatisfying jobs they aren't good at... nothing to do with the Midwest.
To take this a step further, you don't even have to be in a substantial city to get the walkable atmosphere. Granted you'll suffer a smaller variety of restaurants, but there are towns of just 10k or 20k that manage to get things right, and some of them are really cool places.
It's really all about suburbia. It's isolating, expensive, and unproductive. The places that come to grips with this fact soon (or already) will face a much less painful contraction in the future. And they won't find themselves with a bunch of impoverished people stuck out in suburbs that no one else will live in.
It's really all about suburbia. It's isolating, expensive, and unproductive. The places that come to grips with this fact soon (or already) will face a much less painful contraction in the future. And they won't find themselves with a bunch of impoverished people stuck out in suburbs that no one else will live in.
Suburbia is all about cost per square foot. It's not going anywhere. It'll just be apartments rather than single family detatched.
At least in the US, we're not exactly constrained by land availability. And as you may notice, the sustainability of NYC and SF style property prices isn't guaranteed.
At least in the US, we're not exactly constrained by land availability. And as you may notice, the sustainability of NYC and SF style property prices isn't guaranteed.
The constraint isn't the amount of raw land, but rather the necessity of productive density if we are to afford the level of public services that most of us are accustomed to.
I have nothing against people living in sparsely populated areas, but the people living there now are mostly not seeing true costs of their lifestyles. If they weren't so heavily subsidized, they would probably have a lot more wells, septic tanks, and gravel roads; the school buses would not run to their houses; and they would have slower emergency response times and less police presence.
Faced with those painful realities, I expect more people would choose dense living. That's not to say they'd have to. Me personally, I just hate driving and love eating, in both cases too much to commute by car.
I have nothing against people living in sparsely populated areas, but the people living there now are mostly not seeing true costs of their lifestyles. If they weren't so heavily subsidized, they would probably have a lot more wells, septic tanks, and gravel roads; the school buses would not run to their houses; and they would have slower emergency response times and less police presence.
Faced with those painful realities, I expect more people would choose dense living. That's not to say they'd have to. Me personally, I just hate driving and love eating, in both cases too much to commute by car.
So eat while you drive, man :) ( I too hate driving, but live suburban and have been extremely lucky in being able to keep commute times to a minimum - like on the order of five minutes ).
Productive density is constrained by things like how accounting works, how we can't get out of our own way, by other things that are like public choice economics. At each job I've had, I've seen people walk away from millions of dollars, either in increased sales or reduced cost because somebody just didn't understand it ( or rather, did understand it all too well ).
I couldn't agree more - people who live farther out should expect less services unless they're prepared to pay what they actually cost. In cases like California, the Pubic Choice Theory stories about water are ... interesting enough that it's a central plot element from a movie from the 1970s - "Chinatown".
I've lived on well water and septic.
This being said, I don't think real estate development public debt is even on the radar as a threat to anything. They can always raise rates...
Productive density is constrained by things like how accounting works, how we can't get out of our own way, by other things that are like public choice economics. At each job I've had, I've seen people walk away from millions of dollars, either in increased sales or reduced cost because somebody just didn't understand it ( or rather, did understand it all too well ).
I couldn't agree more - people who live farther out should expect less services unless they're prepared to pay what they actually cost. In cases like California, the Pubic Choice Theory stories about water are ... interesting enough that it's a central plot element from a movie from the 1970s - "Chinatown".
I've lived on well water and septic.
This being said, I don't think real estate development public debt is even on the radar as a threat to anything. They can always raise rates...
Lol, I meant that I need the energy consumption of walking to support my carb-eating habit. I can handle the time commitment of eating mostly.
As to the policy questions, I admit that I don't know how to solve that one. I know a start would be to clean up the mess made by FHA standards. And I think a lot of places have moved, or are starting to move, away from Euclidean zoning, which is a step in the right direction, if not a very large one.
As to the policy questions, I admit that I don't know how to solve that one. I know a start would be to clean up the mess made by FHA standards. And I think a lot of places have moved, or are starting to move, away from Euclidean zoning, which is a step in the right direction, if not a very large one.
>My life in the Minneapolis strongly resembles my former life in Seattle. I have walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
You do? Even when it's -40? I find this very, very hard to believe.
I can bike in the drizzling rain with little trouble. Biking when it's -40 is a no-go, it's a good way to get frostbite and hypothermia.
You do? Even when it's -40? I find this very, very hard to believe.
I can bike in the drizzling rain with little trouble. Biking when it's -40 is a no-go, it's a good way to get frostbite and hypothermia.
[deleted]
I think I must miss the point of articles like this. Is this author trying to warn us of downward spirals he's seen? Impart his priorities upon us?
There are a lot of articles here that try to isolate and analyze pivotal traits or habits. This is the opposite, throwing everything you can imagine into one big, confused soup of "what caused what?".
It could also be that this is a common mindset, but I just haven't met these people.
I just wish the suburban experiment would die already: it's quite a hellish existence to have to endure, just because you didn't take the time to learn about all the odd artificial incentives that push people toward that unproductive and isolating pattern of life.
There are a lot of articles here that try to isolate and analyze pivotal traits or habits. This is the opposite, throwing everything you can imagine into one big, confused soup of "what caused what?".
It could also be that this is a common mindset, but I just haven't met these people.
I just wish the suburban experiment would die already: it's quite a hellish existence to have to endure, just because you didn't take the time to learn about all the odd artificial incentives that push people toward that unproductive and isolating pattern of life.
I really read the article like a "Trouble Brewing" "Far Side" cartoon. Guy thinks "going into management" will mean the skies will open up; guy is overleveraged and one layoff away from bankruptcy, maybe divorce, who knows? Guy is clearly not "management material" in the eyes of his employer, which is a dwindling enterprise with probably an end date.
The main thing he: he depends on credit vendors for establishing limits on spending.
I've lived in 'burbs all my life, and most people are pretty happy with it. I mean it's nice to have a forced exercise program with "walkability" but it's hardly critical and hard to substitute for.
The main thing he: he depends on credit vendors for establishing limits on spending.
I've lived in 'burbs all my life, and most people are pretty happy with it. I mean it's nice to have a forced exercise program with "walkability" but it's hardly critical and hard to substitute for.
>I've lived in 'burbs all my life, and most people are pretty happy with it. I mean it's nice to have a forced exercise program with "walkability" but it's hardly critical
Given the obesity epidemic in America this days, I think you're wrong here about the criticality of walkability. Go to Manhattan sometime and see if you can find any fat people. Now go to suburban Atlanta and see how many people are so fat they need motorized carts just to shop at Walmart.
Given the obesity epidemic in America this days, I think you're wrong here about the criticality of walkability. Go to Manhattan sometime and see if you can find any fat people. Now go to suburban Atlanta and see how many people are so fat they need motorized carts just to shop at Walmart.
Bluntly, I don't think we understand the obesity problem.
I think a lot of it is fairly obvious: diet and exercise. My evidence is pretty simple: look at cultures (including local cultures) where everyone drives everywhere, versus cultures where everyone walks everywhere. You just don't see morbidly obese people in cultures where they're forced to walk a lot; it's mainly an American and Western phenomenon (it's worst in America and Mexico). Diet is probably another big factor: in obese cultures, calories are cheap, but the food quality is generally very poor.
What a horribly cynical article. I would hate to be a member of this person's family and read it. Perhaps I'm missing the irony of him being bound to his position in life by the choices he made, but I don't really feel bad for him.
Having felt the way the author expresses in this article, I can honestly say the sentiment expressed here has nothing to do with the suburbs, the Midwest, or having a corporate job. It has everything to do with settling and accepting the status quo. I could list a number of things the person here could do, but seriously, this reads like someone who is not happy with his current situation but does not want to put the effort into changing it.
It's easy to get in a rut. It's especially easy when you have a lot of distractions.
Kids are a big distraction. One of the magical things about my wife is that she handles a lot of distractions for me. Most women just won't. It's slightly unfair to her, but she's a Professional Mom and extremely good at it. As has been noted in literature, it's all but impossible to price this.
The downside is - one stream of income. And it's been pretty scary when I've gotten laid off.
Kids are a big distraction. One of the magical things about my wife is that she handles a lot of distractions for me. Most women just won't. It's slightly unfair to her, but she's a Professional Mom and extremely good at it. As has been noted in literature, it's all but impossible to price this.
The downside is - one stream of income. And it's been pretty scary when I've gotten laid off.
> Kids are a big distraction.
I understand the sentiment, but this lines has always bothered me. I try to find ways to incorporate my children into the things I enjoy and want to do...
I understand the sentiment, but this lines has always bothered me. I try to find ways to incorporate my children into the things I enjoy and want to do...
There's only so much you can do with this. When children are really young, you just can't bring them a lot of places, such as nice restaurants, because they're too disruptive, so that means that for the first 5-7 years, you have to hire a babysitter if you want to do anything "adult".
I like to go hiking and road biking on weekends. You can't do this with kids; they just can't keep up. A 6-year-old isn't going to be able to do a 10-mile hike or a rock scramble with you, nor will she be able to ride 40 miles. You can do really easy hikes or bike rides, but those are pretty boring and do little for physical fitness (which is the other reason I do them, so I don't have to spend hours a week at the gym to avoid health problems). When the kids get to be teenagers they can probably handle that stuff, but that means there's 12+ years where you either don't do that stuff at all and get fat, or you hire a babysitter.
If you have other interests like listening to classical music concerts, or rock concerts, you can't bring kids to that stuff either; at one they'll be a disruption and at the other they'll be miserable. Again, when they become teenagers, they may be interested in those things (maybe, doubtful though because you're interested in them), but again that's a long time to wait, and now they're almost in college!
Honestly, having kids would be fun if it weren't such a huge time-sink, and you actually had help doing it instead of having to do it all by yourself (as with most parents I see these days), or if you're really lucky, with one partner who's also really busy with work.
It's no wonder the birthrate is so low these days in developed nations. I really think society needs to rethink its social norms and customs if it wants to reverse this, unless they can figure out how to greatly increase lifespans so it becomes normal and feasible to have kids at ~50-75 years old after you've established yourself financially and can afford to take off 5 years or more and only work part-time or not at all without ruining your future career. Also, polyamory would be a lot more sensible for raising kids; having adult time is easier when there's, say, 4 adult people in a household so one of them could volunteer to be babysitter for the group's kids, and there's more hands to share chores, and more incomes to share among the family.
I like to go hiking and road biking on weekends. You can't do this with kids; they just can't keep up. A 6-year-old isn't going to be able to do a 10-mile hike or a rock scramble with you, nor will she be able to ride 40 miles. You can do really easy hikes or bike rides, but those are pretty boring and do little for physical fitness (which is the other reason I do them, so I don't have to spend hours a week at the gym to avoid health problems). When the kids get to be teenagers they can probably handle that stuff, but that means there's 12+ years where you either don't do that stuff at all and get fat, or you hire a babysitter.
If you have other interests like listening to classical music concerts, or rock concerts, you can't bring kids to that stuff either; at one they'll be a disruption and at the other they'll be miserable. Again, when they become teenagers, they may be interested in those things (maybe, doubtful though because you're interested in them), but again that's a long time to wait, and now they're almost in college!
Honestly, having kids would be fun if it weren't such a huge time-sink, and you actually had help doing it instead of having to do it all by yourself (as with most parents I see these days), or if you're really lucky, with one partner who's also really busy with work.
It's no wonder the birthrate is so low these days in developed nations. I really think society needs to rethink its social norms and customs if it wants to reverse this, unless they can figure out how to greatly increase lifespans so it becomes normal and feasible to have kids at ~50-75 years old after you've established yourself financially and can afford to take off 5 years or more and only work part-time or not at all without ruining your future career. Also, polyamory would be a lot more sensible for raising kids; having adult time is easier when there's, say, 4 adult people in a household so one of them could volunteer to be babysitter for the group's kids, and there's more hands to share chores, and more incomes to share among the family.
I just mean that I was not going to get a lot of calls at work where I have to go get the kids, that sort of thing.
Sometimes changing your life doesn't mean putting in extra effort, but taking extra risks. If you have a family and a mortgage taking those risks might not be palatable.
You can still find risks that are palatable. The person described in this article mentions a desire to work for a Silicon Valley startup. That's not possible, but why not look for local startups? Or ones that offer remote positions? I did just that.
Because startups are inherently risky to work at, and when you have a big mortgage and credit card bills and you're not saving anything (as with many Americans in suburbs), you can't afford the risk of a temporary loss of work.
Also, startups are infamous for demanding very long hours, in exchange for the vague promise of your stock becoming valuable. Parents don't have that much extra time.
Also, startups are infamous for demanding very long hours, in exchange for the vague promise of your stock becoming valuable. Parents don't have that much extra time.
I was in Kansas City the other day. Seems like a place where a software developer could actually afford to live in a hip urban neighborhood a short Uber ride away from work, even with a family. Good luck doing that in San Francisco.
(Also, having kids doesn't mean you can't be hip and urban. Urban centers are full of kids! We went trick-or-treating in Capitol Hill last year, and it was hard to fit in the sidewalk with all the parents and kids.)
(Also, having kids doesn't mean you can't be hip and urban. Urban centers are full of kids! We went trick-or-treating in Capitol Hill last year, and it was hard to fit in the sidewalk with all the parents and kids.)
You try out cost of living calculations and they say you'd need to make 250% your current salary on the west coast. Annoyed at the seemingly impossible move, you tell yourself they'll be rioting over water shortages soon anyways. After all, do you even want to be near the coast when the oceans rise?