Literal roommates — who share a sleeping room? Or flatmates who just share an apartment living room, kitchen, etc?
I've never not lived with the second kind of roommates (as an adult), but in a city like NYC or SF, that still is much more expensive than the stuff on the list.
Either would be appropriate, though I did mean flatmates.
In college I and many other adults had literal roommate, including some who lived in off-campus apartments. My father tells a story, back in the 1960s, of a place he lived for a few months where there were more people than beds. They used hot-bunking, since some worked nights.
In any case, if your reference is living in a city like NYC or SF then the item "Move to foreign country where it's cheaper to live" should be changed to the more generic "Move to a place where it's cheaper to live."
The emphasis on "foreign country" is why I agree with jquery's comment that the list is 'about status and "conspicuous authenticity", not about actually living cheaply.'
If you can work in a forest in Sweden, then you can also work in Buffalo, where the cost of living is about 1/2 of that NYC. Or for that matter, you can work from a forest in New York State, and save the price of airfare.
My point was that "get roommates", or for your situation "move to Sacramento", and "live in the woods in California" should be higher on that list than "move to a foreign country that's cheaper" and "live in the woods in Sweden." The choice of those more exotic (and harder) options makes me agree with jquery that the list 'was about status and "conspicuous authenticity", not about actually living cheaply.'
When I lived in the Bay Area, during the dot-com era, people did actually camp in the state parks because it was so hard to find housing. There was a one week limit per park, so they would rotate through the parks.
