MM1970 wrote:
"So, there's nothing wrong with hard work, and I agree that it's good to not stray far from that. Mow your own lawn, wash your own car, cook your own meals, etc.
But...where's the balance?
Grow your own food - MMM doesn't do that
Teach your own kids - should everyone homeschool?
So what is better or worse?
If everyone grew their own food, would we need as many farmers or grocery stores?
If everyone cleaned their own houses, would we need cleaning services?
If everyone mowed their own lawns or shoveled their own snow...?"
I take the point, and have often considered it myself. What if the economy were changed significantly so that people did more for themselves? What would happen to service jobs (restaurants, carpentry, etc.)? Further, what would happen to the economy if we were to cut down buying Chinese factory-made trinkets for Christmas gifts, things that would end up in the trash bin after a few days? Would the economy be able to survive this? What would happen to VSTAX?
As usual, MMM's answer to this is more eloquent than my own:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/09/what-if-everyone-became-frugal/I honestly believe that, if we value true craftsmanship vs. the cheap and expendable, we would support a kind of labor with dignity, and owning fewer, higher quality items would be a net benefit for a different, improved economy. I'm even crazy enough to envision a world in which people are paid to repair well-made tools and appliances, vs. throwing them in a landfill and buying new, cheaply-made items and perpetuating the cycle.
I wouldn't go so far as to advocate an economy built on the creation of $60 hand-made light bulbs, but I do think splurging for fewer bottles of craft beer (vs. the other stuff) or fewer, higher quality meals in restaurants is better for a civilized economy than going for quantity over quality.
People were talking about this at the beginning of the 20th century and the point remains valid today (John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice).
The problem with an economy built on the assumption that those at the highest income levels support the whole thing by having the rest of us empty their chamber pots and other menial labor is that we've seen it work better with a thriving middle class supporting the labor of others in the middle class (the carpenter purchasing the Mustang built in Detroit, etc.).
The problem I have with a family of four living in a 6,200 sq. ft. house and not daring to venture out into the neighborhood to shovel snow or walk to school is that it's bad for the sense of community and an unhealthy way to raise kids. I've lived in the Third World, and totally get the idea that it helps the local economy on occasion to pay someone a few pesos to polish your shoes; I've done it. But this isn't the Third World, and I'm not sure that's the model to which we should aspire.
Raising your kids in such a way that they live in (often gated) houses three times those of their neighbors and never encounter the slightest hint of physical work or hardship produces a spoiled, entitled generation that is completely out of touch with the values epsoused in this blog. As a teacher, I've encountered these little demigods and can tell you it's no picnic getting through the layer of affluenza to get them to think from a different point of view.
Despite my best efforts, I can't possibly imagine how questioning this betrays some sense of jealousy of not being able to live in this way myself. I would go crazy within a week.