The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: 2handband on May 19, 2012, 03:30:44 AM
-
K, here's the situation:
My wife cannot work, for various reasons that I shall not go into in a first post.
For those same reasons, I have to be home more often than not. We have a four-year old daughter that needs an active parent. I make my living playing guitar in bars on weekends and doing occasional odd jobs. As you can imagine, it's not a lot of money. But it allows me to be at home most of the time which is fine... I don't like working much anyway!
The reason this works is that our expenses are exquisitely low. We have no debt except for student loans which are forever buried in Income Based Repayment (we make so little money that our payments are $0 a month), I grow most of our food, and we own our mobile home free and clear. Our only significant expense is trailer park lot rent, which is highway robbery at $250 a month. There are less expensive parks in town, but oddly they're all quite a bit more upscale and won't let a 1974 trailer near the place.
I'd like to get out from under the lot rent. Part of it is that true freedom is owning your home and the land it sits on (we've got the first but not the second), and the other part is that my wife hates bitterly living in what is indisputably the crummiest neighborhood in our small city of 12,000 ppl. Unfortunately my wife's condition also precludes us going very far, and the cheapest house in town is 40,000. I could buy a vacant lot with cash on hand, but the nazis on the town council have decreed that mobile homes must be confined to mobile home parks (some horseshit about propping up property values), so I'd have a lot with no house. I could probably build a house, but with building codes being what they are I'd stand an excellent chance of running out of dough before the project was completed.
Bottom line: I don't have a lot of money, and am not likely to get a bunch of it in the immediate future. We are trying rather desperately to get out of the trailer park we are in, but are not willing to increase our living expenses in order to do so; in fact we want to reduce our living expenses by owning a place free and clear! I have some money saved up, but it will not buy a pre-existing home in this city and I can't put my trailer on a vacant lot. We've considered a lot in one of the small towns in the immediate surrounding area (where I could put the trailer), but that brings up the nasty subject of car dependency.
Any badass ideas? I've been trying to think outside the box and come up with something completely wild to do, but all I can think of is the mundane. If it wasn't for my wife I'd pack up and move out to one of the rust belt cities where houses are being sold for like a dollar, but that simply isn't an option at this point.
-
Have you looked into the idea of buying a multiplex (duplex, triplex, or fourplex) and living in one unit while renting out the other? Have the other tenants cover the costs (utilities, mortgage, etc), meaning you live for free.
Take all the money you were putting towards (lot) rent and aggressively save up until you have enough to do one of the other options you were discussing (buy a lot and build a house up to code, for example), and then move there and rent out the unit you were living in as well.
Depending on your proclivity towards leverage and "good" debt, you could aggressively pay down that multiplex first and then when it's mortgage free implement phase two.
I suppose the biggest difficulty with this idea is getting a mortgage with your (lack of) income. Maybe if you know someone who can cosign with you?
-
My gut instinct is your decision hinges on the non-negotiables - what you must have as a result of this decision - and if your family has any they are willing to give up or relax. So before I offer any crazy ideas - not that I promise I'll have a great one - I have a few question for you to explore that.
- Where does your home need to be to avoid car dependancy?
- Do you need to stay in this area?
- Are you interested in getting earning more money short term such as getting a part time job?
- You know your wife better than anyone but in my experience things are often not about what they seem. Could your wife's dislike of the neighborhood really be about isolation she feels with illness or discomfort with raising a child there, etc? If that changed, would you still move?
-
Are the taxes, maintenance and insurance on the $40,000 property more than your current lot rent?
If so I'd only buy if you were generating additional income from the property (letting out rooms etc).
What I'd plan to do is find some friends and move onto their back lawn. Give them free gardening services in exchange for land rent.
Alternatively, can you buy that $40,000 home rent it out and move your mobile home onto the back lawn? (or rent out your mobile home and live if the house).
PS congrats on keeping you living expenses low - that's half the battle.
-
My gut instinct is your decision hinges on the non-negotiables - what you must have as a result of this decision - and if your family has any they are willing to give up or relax. So before I offer any crazy ideas - not that I promise I'll have a great one - I have a few question for you to explore that.
- Where does your home need to be to avoid car dependancy?
- Do you need to stay in this area?
- Are you interested in getting earning more money short term such as getting a part time job?
- You know your wife better than anyone but in my experience things are often not about what they seem. Could your wife's dislike of the neighborhood really be about isolation she feels with illness or discomfort with raising a child there, etc? If that changed, would you still move?
To take your questions one at a time:
1) In order to avoid car dependency at the moment, we need to have close access to a grocery store and a clinic. There's also the fact that most of the surrounding communities that I could move the trailer into have aging populations and very limited social opportunities. The last things my wife and daughter need are extreme social isolation. Not to mention that i rehearse here in town. In our present situation there's nowhere in town that we can't reasonably bike to, even though we live on the extreme edge of town. We do own a car, but it only gets driven a few thousand miles a year, mostly during the winter (we live in Minnesota).
2) I cannot take my wife away from her present support system. It would be disastrous.
3) Yes, but I need to be home a lot as my wife is not always capable of taking care of our daughter by herself, and I am damned if I'm going to let her be babysat by a TV set. As it is if I'm doing an overnighter out of town (which happens a lot of weekends) I have to make sure I've got assistance arranged that can be there in a few minutes time. We're needing that less and less as time goes on, but it's a long shot from being over with. As it is I just joined a second band that plays jazz in supper clubs one or two nights a week to make a little extra cash, but what it adds is really only a nice little supplement. So the answer is yes, I'm willing to work a bit more in the short term. But the work has to be compatible with a difficult home situation.
4) The issues my wife has with the park mostly has to do with the fact that we live in what is generally a very middle-class sort of town, and where we live makes social situations a bit difficult. If you live here people automatically assume you're a loser. I don't mind so much (I'm sufficiently arrogant to not give a fuck what people think of me) but it's harder for her. My big thing is that I would like to see the lot rent go away so yes... I'd still like to move. Most of the urgency comes from my wife's hatred of the place. If it was just me I'd just save cash for another year or two (I've been reading the tea leaves and expect another leg down for the housing market) and then make a move.
@arebelspy: I'm fairly debt-averse at this juncture, and honestly I doubt like hell anyone's gonna give me a loan. I don't make that much, and a lot of what I do make is under the table...
@gooki: The taxes and maintenance would be less, but the mortgage would be a lot more. The moving onto someone's back lawn is being considered. I just picked up a heavy-duty trailer for pennies and am thinking about building one of those tiny trailer houses using scrounged materials. Gets you around the building codes. So far that's the only really good idea I've come up with.
-
So you don't have money, don't want to relocate, don't want to earn more...
You're in sort of a tough spot. Seems like something's gotta give.
Maybe work on a priorities list, and do some deep introspection as well as discussions with your family, of which of those things are most important to you?
-
4) The issues my wife has with the park mostly has to do with the fact that we live in what is generally a very middle-class sort of town, and where we live makes social situations a bit difficult. If you live here people automatically assume you're a loser. I don't mind so much (I'm sufficiently arrogant to not give a fuck what people think of me) but it's harder for her. My big thing is that I would like to see the lot rent go away so yes... I'd still like to move. Most of the urgency comes from my wife's hatred of the place. If it was just me I'd just save cash for another year or two (I've been reading the tea leaves and expect another leg down for the housing market) and then make a move.
I just can't think of anything unconventional since, when it is comes to social stuff, a lot of people are damn conventional. My three ideas are -
- If you are not completely loan adverse, look around town for some banks that have some local discretion on loans. Feel them out for what it would take to qualify for a loan. Since you are an edge case, I suspect learning to talk their talk, dress, relationships (even friend of friend), and reliable payment history will have a significant impact.
- Multigenerational home - A couple of my friends have went this route. Do you have a older family member on fixed income that could use some help? Avoids the whole issue of charity since you are helping each other.
- Find out what the minimum requirements are for the other mobile home parks so you can minimize the cost of upgrading to a newer mobile home. Find out from them - See if its flexible? Which one has more space? Do foreclosures, distressed homes ever come up for sale?
-
You have a lot going for you, you don't have a ton of debt and you have steady, though unpredictable, money coming in. I think you are on the right track trying to think outside the box. Your situation doesn't fit in any of the "normal" checkboxes, so the obvious doors are closed to you. Keep following the various rabbit trails of possibilities. The tiny house or trailer in someone's backyard, etc.
Have you gone to the city and specifically asked about options? Sometimes just talking to them about your situation can give you ideas specific to your area. I think networking with everyone you can think of to contact in town is probably worth doing, though it obviously might not lead to anything new. How big of a city are you in?
Regarding the other mobile parks not allowing your trailer, have you talked to them about options to make it work? Maybe find a way to make the trailer look more modern, with new siding or something? Just a thought.
-
@arebelspy: It's not a matter of not wanting to make more money, it's just that it's not very easy. I'm in a situation where I'm needed at home. I'm doing the things I can, for example taking on this jazz gig (which I can tell you I did NOT really want to do). If I could find a way to earn money from home that would be great, but we all know that this sort of stuff is a scam 90% of the time.
@Lars: the social stuff is a big problem. My wife takes our kid to ECFE at the local elementary school once a week, and desperately wants to make friends with some of the other moms taking their kids there. The problem with this is that all those other moms are firmly entrenched in the middle class, and don't have much interest in anybody who's not.
I'm not completely debt-averse under the right circumstances, but it would probably be very hard. Income aside, I haven't borrowed money in six or seven years and thus have no recent credit history to speak of. If i find something I really want to buy I will definitely look into it, though.
@James: I thought I was a really resourceful dude, but of course in our society there comes a time when you just need money. This may well be one of those times. I probably should go talk to some building inspectors and see what I can get away with. I hadn't thought of modifying the trailer... I'm not sure i want to continue paying rent for the rest of my life, but if I could significantly cut that rent it might be worth pursuing. And to answer your question, this is a city of about 12,000 ppl.
-
@arebelspy: It's not a matter of not wanting to make more money, it's just that it's not very easy. I'm in a situation where I'm needed at home. I'm doing the things I can, for example taking on this jazz gig (which I can tell you I did NOT really want to do). If I could find a way to earn money from home that would be great, but we all know that this sort of stuff is a scam 90% of the time.
I put it the way I did for a reason. I was hoping to get more of a rise out of you. ;)
I was brusque on purpose, to hopefully make you reflect. You're not going to want to do anything that may be needed. You may need to though. Sure, of course you'd want more income. But that takes a sacrifice as much as the other things. Saying "I'm needed at home" may well be true, but it's also quite limiting. You're correct about those "work from home" things, in general.
There won't be a magic solution. It's going to be a hard solution with sacrifice.
Again, think about this:
So you don't have money, don't want to relocate, don't want to earn more...
You're in sort of a tough spot. Seems like something's gotta give.
Maybe work on a priorities list, and do some deep introspection as well as discussions with your family, of which of those things are most important to you?
Good luck!
-
Finding ways around building codes reminds me of this guy.
http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/mortgage-free-tiny-home-on-a-housekeepers-salary/
Is there a minimum square footage requirement for houses?
One group of people who are usually more educated and interesting, yet still poor, are artists and musicians. Is there any sort of community like that around you? (I imagine that if there were, you would already be plugged in.)
-
Finding ways around building codes reminds me of this guy.
http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/mortgage-free-tiny-home-on-a-housekeepers-salary/
Is there a minimum square footage requirement for houses?
One group of people who are usually more educated and interesting, yet still poor, are artists and musicians. Is there any sort of community like that around you? (I imagine that if there were, you would already be plugged in.)
I've been scouring the internet looking for people building tiny homes but hadn't seen that one yet. Building the garage and then skipping the house... that is fucking brilliant. that gets you around the biggest single problem which is, yes... minimum size. Something in the neighborhood of 1200 square feet for a single story.
I'm practically falling out of my chair right now; of course you couldn't have known but the very notion of a hippie-ish musicians enclave in this uppity little town is hilarious. We don't even have a proper coffee shop to hang out at...
That said, I have a handful of good buddies who are musicians here in the area, including the ones I work with. Most of them have full-time jobs and are in fact pretty well-off, but musicians tend to be not quite as bigoted about such things. They actually think our lifestyle is kind of cool. Their wives, on the other hand, see things a bit differently.
-
That story kind of inspired me; I'm going out to look at lots tomorrow. If I can find one I like that can be bought with cash on hand (which I can probably do) I could build most of a "garage" before the snow flies this fall. The project would by no means be complete, but it would be livable. Then next summer I can finish it up and just never build the "house".
-
Good luck. You are in a hard situation, and I wish you and your wife the best. Some thoughts - is there any government assistance or assistance through a church or non-profit your wife and you could get? Also, $250 lot rent sounds tiny to me. It may be unreasonable where you live, but I wonder if part of the stress you are feeling is made worse b/c you feel you are wasting so much money. I think that is a very minimal amount for a lot.
We put a trailer on a vacant lot a few years ago. The plan was to save money. Yeah, not so much. Make sure you know the cost of utilities going in. Are you going to need to put in a septic system? How much is water and electricity? Are your neighbors going to call zoning? Make sure you have all the permits for everything you do - your neighbors might not like your garage. I speak from personal experience.
Heidi
-
$250 is actually pretty low for a place to live overall. Property taxes (which last forever) are generally more than that even if you own a very cheap home in a low-tax area.
-
"taxes, maintenance and insurance..."
and the interest part of a loan, opportunity cost of down payment, additional utilities, higher energy bills, annualized cost of closing costs, repairs, appliances...
Buying a house costs a lot more than the mortgage payment, its just that people tend not to notice if its not all rolled into a single bill.
Depending where you live, I think many people pay over $250 a month even if the house is fully paid off, when you consider all of the costs.
I know in CA any home with wheels and less than 400SF is considered an RV, not a mobile home, and therefor property taxes are charged for an improved lot instead of a home. In urban areas city codes usually won't let you live in one, but many rural areas will; its not a state level decision.
I like the idea of rental property, but with lot rent, I think it makes more sense to buy a multi-unit... and then rent them both out, while continuing to live in the trailer. As long as you can rent each unit out for more than you pay in rent, it makes sense. Thats my plan, as soon as I can save up for the down payment.
BTW, I live in my (fully paid) 35ft RV trailer, and pay $485 for space rent (garbage paid, but water and electric metered)
-
"taxes, maintenance and insurance..."
and the interest part of a loan, opportunity cost of down payment, additional utilities, higher energy bills, annualized cost of closing costs, repairs, appliances...
Buying a house costs a lot more than the mortgage payment, its just that people tend not to notice if its not all rolled into a single bill.
Depending where you live, I think many people pay over $250 a month even if the house is fully paid off, when you consider all of the costs.
I know in CA any home with wheels and less than 400SF is considered an RV, not a mobile home, and therefor property taxes are charged for an improved lot instead of a home. In urban areas city codes usually won't let you live in one, but many rural areas will; its not a state level decision.
I like the idea of rental property, but with lot rent, I think it makes more sense to buy a multi-unit... and then rent them both out, while continuing to live in the trailer. As long as you can rent each unit out for more than you pay in rent, it makes sense. Thats my plan, as soon as I can save up for the down payment.
BTW, I live in my (fully paid) 35ft RV trailer, and pay $485 for space rent (garbage paid, but water and electric metered)
$485??? That's highway robbery. But I'm not surprised, I guess. I looked into an RV park and was shocked at what they cost. A mobile home park is way cheaper.
Yeah, building codes are a bitch. They're basically designed to make banks and contractors rich.
-
Any chance you could buy a larger lot and start your own mobile home park?
-
Any chance you could buy a larger lot and start your own mobile home park?
Interesting idea, but I imagine a lot that big would be damn expensive! I'm looking for something I can buy with cash.
-
Your small house on a trailer, moved onto a friends lawn sounds like a good plan to me.
-
Your small house on a trailer, moved onto a friends law sounds like a good plan to me.
That's the current plan. I'm exploring others, which is why I started this thread.
-
Another idea is to become professional house sitters - live rent free, look after peoples homes while they're off on holiday. No need to own a lot of stuff, and you get to live in some nice neighbourhoods. But may not be viable in your town, and you may have to put up with moving a few times per year.
-
$485??? That's highway robbery. But I'm not surprised, I guess. I looked into an RV park and was shocked at what they cost. A mobile home park is way cheaper.
I live in a mobile home park that accepts RVs. $485 is cheap for a mobile home park in the SF Bay Area. Around here it generally costs $600-700 for a ROOM in someone else's house, or $800-1000 for a studio.
The San Francisco area has the highest cost of housing in the country (the world?), even higher than NYC (or so I've read).
Upside is the salaries are high too, so living relatively cheap, in a trailer park, I get the best of both worlds
-
Another idea is to become professional house sitters - live rent free, look after peoples homes while they're off on holiday. No need to own a lot of stuff, and you get to live in some nice neighbourhoods. But may not be viable in your town, and you may have to put up with moving a few times per year.
Another idea that's been considered. I'm just not going there with a four-year-old child who's not accustomed to being in an environment where she's not allowed to touch anything because it's all breakable and spilling a drink on the couch is a major crisis.
-
Any chance you could buy a larger lot and start your own mobile home park?
Interesting idea, but I imagine a lot that big would be damn expensive! I'm looking for something I can buy with cash.
Well, what legally counts as a park? Could you rent out to one other person and call it a park? Are they approved on an individual basis, or is the law more specific?
-
Any chance you could buy a larger lot and start your own mobile home park?
Interesting idea, but I imagine a lot that big would be damn expensive! I'm looking for something I can buy with cash.
Well, what legally counts as a park? Could you rent out to one other person and call it a park? Are they approved on an individual basis, or is the law more specific?
Good question. It's worth checking out.
-
If your daughter is already 4 she should be starting school soon, right? Once that happens you'll be able to work a more steady day job and save up for a place in a nicer neighborhood. Anyway to just tough it out until then?
Edit to add: depending on what is available in your state, you probably qualify for childcare assistance based on your low income. That would allow you to work more now (which is, in fact, the intention of the assistance). If there is a Head Start in your town you should look there first. Our foster daughter was in Head Start and we were very pleased with the program.
-
If your daughter is already 4 she should be starting school soon, right? Once that happens you'll be able to work a more steady day job and save up for a place in a nicer neighborhood. Anyway to just tough it out until then?
That would be a viable option except for one thing: I have no intention of sentencing her to 13 years hard time in some educational concentration camp.
-
If your daughter is already 4 she should be starting school soon, right? Once that happens you'll be able to work a more steady day job and save up for a place in a nicer neighborhood. Anyway to just tough it out until then?
That would be a viable option except for one thing: I have no intention of sentencing her to 13 years hard time in some educational concentration camp.
Ah, I see. Best of luck to you!
-
If your daughter is already 4 she should be starting school soon, right? Once that happens you'll be able to work a more steady day job and save up for a place in a nicer neighborhood. Anyway to just tough it out until then?
That would be a viable option except for one thing: I have no intention of sentencing her to 13 years hard time in some educational concentration camp.
Ah, I see. Best of luck to you!
That was almost word for word the same reply I ended up giving to the OP in another thread!
-
It's obviously a conspiracy. As we all suspected.
-
Okay, yes... I'm a radical on a number of levels. If those aren't welcome here just say the word.
-
Nothing wrong with home schooling. The only family I know that home school are very successful.
-
Okay, yes... I'm a radical on a number of levels. If those aren't welcome here just say the word.
You're plenty welcome. You'll just have to realize that many won't agree with you, and consequently you'll need to have a thick skin sometimes. ;)
Nothing wrong with home schooling. The only family I know that home school are very successful.
My current plan is to home school my kids.
-
Okay, yes... I'm a radical on a number of levels. If those aren't welcome here just say the word.
By American standards, everyone of us here is radical.
I remember reading a long thread on here about homeschooling, so your definitely in good company.
Personally, I had an absolutely wonderful experience in public school.
I think it totally depends on the specific school (or rather, the teachers and students)
-
Okay, yes... I'm a radical on a number of levels. If those aren't welcome here just say the word.
By American standards, everyone of us here is radical.
I remember reading a long thread on here about homeschooling, so your definitely in good company.
Personally, I had an absolutely wonderful experience in public school.
I think it totally depends on the specific school (or rather, the teachers and students)
When it comes to your school experience, I think you're probably the exception. For every kid I've ever met that liked school, I've met 100 who hated it. This is not the fault of the kids, it is the fault of a system that was designed not to benefit children but to benefit the economic system by breaking them to the habits of the workforce. BTW, that's not just me blabbing; the public education system as we understand it today came together under the Wilson administration. The system was designed to specifically combat the labor problems that had come with industrialization up to that point; politicians and captains of industry had very quickly discovered that humans don't take naturally to factory or office conditions! So they designed a system in which children learned, from a very young age, to sit quietly and do boring, repetitive tasks for long periods of time, to promptly follow a carved-in-stone schedule, and to obey a managerial class that they vastly outnumber. I'll find a link if anyone wants to see it, but in a speech given to a group of high-level politicians and industry leaders, an ivy league college professor who was amongst the architects of this amazing new system told his audience that they were going to turn out a superior product (workers), and the specifications would come from government and industry. Yes, that's your kids they're talking about. This is why I turn off my ears when people start talking about "reforming" our educational system: the system works. Just like our political system works, and a bunch of the others that we'd like to reform. They work with nearly 100% efficiency; we're just in denial about their purpose. Look at it this way: last night 10 million kids went to bed hoping for a snowstorm to close the schools... and it's late May! Can this really be the fault of the kids?
-
I loved public school :)
-
Me too! And most of the people I knew. But science tells us that for everyone I was friends with, there were over a hundred more people I wasn't friends with who hated school. Which means, in my graduating class of 270, I must only have been friends with about one and a half to two people, and that's why I have such a skewed idea of how many people like school.
-
Me too! And most of the people I knew. But science tells us that for everyone I was friends with, there were over a hundred more people I wasn't friends with who hated school. Which means, in my graduating class of 270, I must only have been friends with about one and a half to two people, and that's why I have such a skewed idea of how many people like school.
Ask yourself this: given a choice between sitting in that classroom doing repetitive stuff assigned by somebody else and being outside with the same group of kids doing whatever you wanted to do, would you have chosen the classroom? Really?
No 8-year-old child should be cooped up in a classroom and made to sit still for most of a 6-8 hour day. There's a reason so many kids are on Ritalin and shit like that.
-
Count me among the people who enjoyed school.
Sure, you may rather be playing or watching cartoons. Doesn't mean you can't learn a lot from school.
Life is what you make of it. In spite of obstacles.
Most kids don't like school. Most people don't like work. Neither of these are inherently bad though, unless you're a straight hedonist, I suppose.
-
Count me among the people who enjoyed school.
Sure, you may rather be playing or watching cartoons. Doesn't mean you can't learn a lot from school.
Life is what you make of it. In spite of obstacles.
Most kids don't like school. Most people don't like work. Neither of these are inherently bad though, unless you're a straight hedonist, I suppose.
I guess you can count me as a straight hedonist. I kind of go for hunter/gatherer principles: do the bare minimum work necessary to sustain your existence, and spend the rest of your time fucking off. If everybody did this, it would be a happier world and we'd get to watch the horror that is industrial civilization collapse overnight.
-
That's a pretty gross oversimplification of "hunter gatherer principles" -- if we even accept the notion that all hunter-gatherers would have shared any principles in common by virtue of their common economic strategy, which anthropologists do not. It's a simplistic and inaccurate stereotype that reduces the magnificent complexity and diversity of humanity's oldest food procurement strategy to an idiotic and simplistic meme that's then appealed to as the authority for any number of hair-brained schemes from diets to business communications.
Shifting from an anthropological to a philosophical critique, not everyone derives happiness from "fucking off". Even if they did, the happiest world isn't necessarily the 'best' -- to people other than you, virtue is measured by things other than happiness.
Finally, let's talk ecology. Industrial civilization's overnight collapse would lead to a hell of a lot of famine, for one thing. And malaria. And the return of the 1800s' diseases, killing more than half of children before the age of 5.
Any more brilliant ideas?
-
I think happiness is a reasonable measure - as long as you are talking about long-term overall happiness for all sentient creatures, as opposed to moment to moment selfish pleasure sensation seeking. That tends to encompass all (non-religious) values. Ecology, for example, is done for the sake of animals, which also (probably) feel pleasure and pain and want to have good lives (not about "the planet" which is really just a big space rock)
Being a hunter-gather seems like it would get pretty boring and repetitive to me. I'd love to spend a few months, maybe even a year, in deep wilderness learning nature first hand and not relying on human technology. But not more than that.
I am aware of the history of formal education, and I don't disagree with 2hands interpretation...
But see, this is why I said it depends on the individual teachers.
My mother went to the school before each new semester and sat in on the class of every teacher of the grade I was going into, and then told the principal which class she wanted me in from kindergarten to 5th grade.
My school experience had basically no busy work, ever.
I remember very clearly the one time we did - it was under a long-term sub in 5th grade. I lead the entire class (in two groups) to the principals office during recess to file a complaint about him. The principal said our real teacher would be coming back next week, so just try to stick it out - but the last couple days we actually did get a different sub.
We had several recesses per day, and we would get up and do hands on projects during class time.
I would guess this could be different know, with the schools being mandated to teach to the test - although last I heard Obama was doing away with no-child-left-behind.
The only thing I didn't like was homework, and in junior high and high school I did exactly enough of it to get the grade I wanted.
It definitely helped that my (public) high school was on a college campus, and we were allowed to take college classes that counted toward both HS and college. But some of my favorite classes at that school were actually the HS classes, because of the hands on work (I'm not 100% sure we even had a textbook in science class), and the projects (we could turn in movies we made instead of reports!), and the teachers (my history teacher would sit on his desk crosslegged and tell us the "history" of his personal experience of the 60s)
You should read Summerhill. Its a book about a boarding primary school (of the same name) where all classes were voluntary, and all the rules were set democratically (all staff and all students, one vote each). And indeed, most new kids would spend the first semester or two fucking off. But after a while, they would get bored, start going to class and end the end they had a similar graduation rate as traditional schools.
-
That's a pretty gross oversimplification of "hunter gatherer principles" -- if we even accept the notion that all hunter-gatherers would have shared any principles in common by virtue of their common economic strategy, which anthropologists do not. It's a simplistic and inaccurate stereotype that reduces the magnificent complexity and diversity of humanity's oldest food procurement strategy to an idiotic and simplistic meme that's then appealed to as the authority for any number of hair-brained schemes from diets to business communications.
Shifting from an anthropological to a philosophical critique, not everyone derives happiness from "fucking off". Even if they did, the happiest world isn't necessarily the 'best' -- to people other than you, virtue is measured by things other than happiness.
Finally, let's talk ecology. Industrial civilization's overnight collapse would lead to a hell of a lot of famine, for one thing. And malaria. And the return of the 1800s' diseases, killing more than half of children before the age of 5.
Any more brilliant ideas?
My dear, you're talking to a man with a bachelor's in anthropology. I realize that doesn't mean diddly-shit; you're not fit to call yourself an anthropologist until you've got at least a masters, which I will never obtain. That said, even if HG societies as a whole would never codify such a thing as a principle (really, they don't think much about it at all), it's a pretty damn accurate synopsis of what they do. I can recommend some reading if you like (assuming you have an appetite for absurdly priced books)... start with Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins.
How exactly do you define "virtue"?
I'd suggest to you that if industrial civilization went away tomorrow, the vast majority of the world's population would be better off. the moment the people in the third world had access to the land that has been taken from them to mine raw materials for export to the first world or worse, to produce luxury crops for export to the first world, their lives would immediately improve. Only in the first world, a relatively small percentage of the human population, would things get worse, and even there only for awhile. I won't even go into how industrialization requires humans to be stuck in hundreds of millions of jobs that nobody would do if they had a choice, or how it's killing the planet.
-
My dear, you're talking to a man with a bachelor's in anthropology. I realize that doesn't mean diddly-shit; you're not fit to call yourself an anthropologist until you've got at least a masters, which I will never obtain. That said, even if HG societies as a whole would never codify such a thing as a principle (really, they don't think much about it at all), it's a pretty damn accurate synopsis of what they do. I can recommend some reading if you like (assuming you have an appetite for absurdly priced books)... start with Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins.
Absurdly priced? My copy was less than $15 two years ago, and the same version can still be found for under $20 (http://www.textbookx.com/book/Stone-Age-Economics/9780202010991/). Sahlins' work was written as a reaction to the "brutish, nasty, and short" mindset that was prevalent around the time of his writing. He overstates much of what he says, and much of his theory is not entirely grounded in his own empirical work. That's not to say that his work has no points that are both revolutionary and true -- it's well written and advanced early 70s anthropological theory as well as moving the field's understanding of forager economic practices from one dramatic stereotype ("brutish, nasty and short") to another (leisure and plenty). Unfortunately, his stereotype is little more accurate than the one it replaced. The Inuit don't work four hour weeks like Richard Lee's !Kung, one central topic of the contemporary Man the Hunter conference. Finally, behaviors that don't serve a direct economic function need to be accounted for: ritual is needed for social adhesion, for example. These, combined, make the life of "leisure and plenty" less full of leisure. One of the only significant statements you can make about forager societies is that they are exceptionally diverse in their economic behaviors and their environments.
How exactly do you define "virtue"?
That's my point. If I thought toil defined virtue, then your world would be the worst I could imagine (I don't). If you thought that short-term pleasure for humans was what defined virtue, and that the best possible moral outcome would come from maximizing it, your world would be the best I could imagine (again, I don't think so).
I'd suggest to you that if industrial civilization went away tomorrow, the vast majority of the world's population would be better off. the moment the people in the third world had access to the land that has been taken from them to mine raw materials for export to the first world or worse, to produce luxury crops for export to the first world, their lives would immediately improve. Only in the first world, a relatively small percentage of the human population, would things get worse, and even there only for awhile. I won't even go into how industrialization requires humans to be stuck in hundreds of millions of jobs that nobody would do if they had a choice, or how it's killing the planet.
It seems to me like the population of the world is a little higher than the resources that we could extract from the earth without industrial agriculture, based on historical precedent:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg)
I don't think that makes industrial agriculture virtuous or defensible, but you're sorta blithely ignoring the fact that something like 99.99% of the humans alive today would have to die off if the world were to return to population levels stable without industrial agriculture. Maybe that cost is worth it; it's hard to say. But you can't dismiss the fact that even if we weren't mining the third world's resources, not all 7 billion of us would get to keep living.
Yes, people could quit their day jobs. But some of those day jobs send food and mosquito nets to Africa (again, I'm not defending the ecological sense of doing so), which increases the number of people that can live on that chunk of rock. Would the people who are left be happier? Maybe so. But do you have the moral authority to say that 1 person exiting an existential crisis and a 9-to-5 is worth 10000 others' deaths?
-
Back to the original point...perhaps starting your own service or small-scale manufacturing company? Uppity people like their lawns mowed... Or look back at MMM's postings about welding or building a crossfit box or something like that.
-
Back to the original point...perhaps starting your own service or small-scale manufacturing company? Uppity people like their lawns mowed... Or look back at MMM's postings about welding or building a crossfit box or something like that.
On this note, what about making a small, clever, well designed but ultimately useless thing and then selling it for a lot of money on Etsy (http://www.etsy.com/)? Wallets, journals, handmade jewelry, anything knitted or crocheted...
-
If everyone in modern society (let's say the U.S.) did the bare minimum to get by with a hunter/gatherer style, it wouldn't be sustainable. You can't have everyone make under 20k to be on IBR, pay 0 in school loans and pay 0 or very little in income taxes. That would just be too many drains for any society to handle. Thus, in the long term, it would collapse and everyone would be on their own. I think the benefits that you would lose from modern society would FAR outweigh the benefits from going back to the Stone Age to save a few bucks on a societal scale. But, to each their own. I personally get enjoyment from paying my taxes and loans that I have taken out as well as enjoying the benefits of modern innovation/society.
-
I think the benefits that you would lose from modern society would FAR outweigh the benefits from going back to the Stone Age to save a few bucks on a societal scale.
This. However, I do think there are things from previous eras that we can/should emulate, even while retaining the benefits of our technological advancements. Namely, our current social structure is very isolating for many people, and loneliness can kill. I wish we were somehow more tribe-based and less individualistic. I think if could somehow reserve the use mechanical transportation for only food/supply distribution and emergency services, and our day-to-day transportation was via foot or bike that would be a step forward toward. That being said, I like antibacterial soap, toilet paper, and women's lib. I also like living to 80 rather than 40. Sorry, I know that was off topic...
-
Sure, some things were better. Of course this is all subjective but I just meant the net benefits of modern society would be positive, not necessarily that everything in modern society trumps what was done in older civilizations. Yeah, antibacterial soap is pretty cool. But as far as being tribe-based, I don't see how that can be imposed. Maybe ignorance was bliss back in the days when tribal societies were more prevalent with regard to individuality. But now, I just don't see how you can force transportation patterns (foot or bike only) on a large scale. But the great thing about the modern individuality is that you can choose to place yourself in a living situation that meets your own definition of Utopia. You can choose to live where you can bike/walk to work or for groceries and schools etc. Just don't be mad if others do not share the exact same values. To each their own.
-
If everyone in modern society (let's say the U.S.) did the bare minimum to get by with a hunter/gatherer style, it wouldn't be sustainable. You can't have everyone make under 20k to be on IBR, pay 0 in school loans and pay 0 or very little in income taxes
I think you're confusing hunting and gathering food with what 2handband currently does to pay his way through the world. Hunters and gatherers hunt and gather the majority of their food, not play jazz guitar and garden. Nobody was suggesting that everyone should use IBR while keeping their income low, and doing so has nothing to do with foraging. We were discussing the merits of an economic system based on industrial agriculture as opposed to foraging.
I like antibacterial soap, toilet paper, and women's lib. I also like living to 80 rather than 40.
Antibacterial soap gives kids allergies and weakens immune systems in addition to preventing deaths from gangrene. Women could only be liberated relative to what they were before, which was existing without rights, since the invention of rights as a legal and social construct a thousand years ago with the Magna Carta. Hunter-gatherer societies weren't all the same but tended towards egalitarianism between the genders. The notion that women used to be less free and have become more free over time is only really accurate over recent history, since we've been living in stratified societies with defined rights and social ranks. As for living to 80, the average life expectancy in the world is really more accurate than the average life expectancy in the US. It's not that we live in a world without mercury, it's that we put all the mercury on someone else. And as for living to 40, much of the age discrepancy is due to early childhood mortality.
-
If everyone in modern society (let's say the U.S.) did the bare minimum to get by with a hunter/gatherer style, it wouldn't be sustainable. You can't have everyone make under 20k to be on IBR, pay 0 in school loans and pay 0 or very little in income taxes. That would just be too many drains for any society to handle. Thus, in the long term, it would collapse and everyone would be on their own. I think the benefits that you would lose from modern society would FAR outweigh the benefits from going back to the Stone Age to save a few bucks on a societal scale. But, to each their own. I personally get enjoyment from paying my taxes and loans that I have taken out as well as enjoying the benefits of modern innovation/society.
True, but that is a very extreme example.
For several decades now in the US, increases in national productivity have not translated to increases in median standard of living.
Which means that our increases in consumption, while benefiting "the economy", has benefited society. It only works as long as your willing to define "the economy" as those individuals who control most of it. I'm not talking the top 1%. I'm talking the top 0.01%
Since our standard of living is no higher - after accounting for technology, and adjusting for inflation - than it was in the 1960s, we could reduce out collective consumption at least to the level it was then, and see no loss in social services or collective goods. All that would change is that there would be a lot less excess floating around for the elite to skim off the top of.
-
Antibacterial soap gives kids allergies and weakens immune systems in addition to preventing deaths from gangrene.
I don't know about you, but I will take allergies over gangrene (and I have pretty bad allergies). I know that excessive use of antibiotics causes its own problems, but can you honestly say you would rather they had never been invented?
As for living to 80, the average life expectancy in the world is really more accurate than the average life expectancy in the US. It's not that we live in a world without mercury, it's that we put all the mercury on someone else.
Fair enough. I revise my statement to "I also like living to 70 rather than 30". (FWIW, wikipedia said the worldwide life expectancy at birth for a female is 69.5, and the only source I could find on life expectancy at birth for hunter-gatherers said it ranged from 28-33. I'm not an anthropologist, so if there is a better source, I'm open.)
And as for living to 40, much of the age discrepancy is due to early childhood mortality.
Yes, and why is infant mortality lower nowadays? Is it not advances in medicine and technology?
But as far as being tribe-based, I don't see how that can be imposed. Maybe ignorance was bliss back in the days when tribal societies were more prevalent with regard to individuality. But now, I just don't see how you can force transportation patterns (foot or bike only) on a large scale. But the great thing about the modern individuality is that you can choose to place yourself in a living situation that meets your own definition of Utopia. You can choose to live where you can bike/walk to work or for groceries and schools etc. Just don't be mad if others do not share the exact same values. To each their own.
Oh, no you can't enforce it. It was more pie-in-the-sky than anything. But it also isn't just a matter of forcing subjective values. Humans aren't meant to be alone. In a way yes, you can "choose your own Utopia", but part of the good thing about tribes was that they were (presumably) forced. We think of choice as an invariably good thing, but sometimes the best thing for you is to love the ones you're with. Plus, some folks can't "choose their Utopia". Many elderly would love nothing more than to be surrounded by their kin in their last years, but they don't have that option. Instead, they live alone. That is the darkside to our individualistic culture. We think that what we really want is absolute freedom, but I would suggest that some filial duty might do us some good. I'm not saying I want to go back in time, and my family is every bit as dysfunctional as the next guy's, but I think there is something to be said for physical co-locality.
-
I, for one, derive much greater pleasure from accomplishing something than "fucking off." I think studies have shown that not doing anything can lead to depression and other mental ailments. I like the idea of working hard at something. Some things make you an income and some do not, but I still like "working on stuff."
As for public school, I actually really enjoyed sitting in a classroom with my peers and learning stuff, even at 8 years old. I was not as comfortable out playing with them because I wasn't as good at soccer or what have you. I was good at school and liked being in a class with kids who were also smart. I miss the sense of community that going to school brings.
-
...
The point was not that hunter-gatherers live a magically better life than we do, the point was that you were only considering one side of the changes and not the other side, the things that have gotten worse. There's the loss of egalitarianism, which has only returned some of the way, for some, in some parts of the world. There's the poorer nutrition now, the more dysfunctional social organization...
I wasn't trying to paint foraging societies as Utopian, I was just trying to point out that the changes have come with a cost.
-
I think the benefits that you would lose from modern society would FAR outweigh the benefits from going back to the Stone Age to save a few bucks on a societal scale.
This. However, I do think there are things from previous eras that we can/should emulate, even while retaining the benefits of our technological advancements. Namely, our current social structure is very isolating for many people, and loneliness can kill. I wish we were somehow more tribe-based and less individualistic. I think if could somehow reserve the use mechanical transportation for only food/supply distribution and emergency services, and our day-to-day transportation was via foot or bike that would be a step forward toward. That being said, I like antibacterial soap, toilet paper, and women's lib. I also like living to 80 rather than 40. Sorry, I know that was off topic...
In order for mechanical transportation to become as advanced as it has for emergency and food/supply distribution purposes, we needed the consumer demand for recreational vehicles as well. Consumer demand can help spur development in new technologies that are later used for the greater good.
-
If everyone in modern society (let's say the U.S.) did the bare minimum to get by with a hunter/gatherer style, it wouldn't be sustainable. You can't have everyone make under 20k to be on IBR, pay 0 in school loans and pay 0 or very little in income taxes. That would just be too many drains for any society to handle. Thus, in the long term, it would collapse and everyone would be on their own. I think the benefits that you would lose from modern society would FAR outweigh the benefits from going back to the Stone Age to save a few bucks on a societal scale. But, to each their own. I personally get enjoyment from paying my taxes and loans that I have taken out as well as enjoying the benefits of modern innovation/society.
True, but that is a very extreme example.
For several decades now in the US, increases in national productivity have not translated to increases in median standard of living.
Which means that our increases in consumption, while benefiting "the economy", has benefited society. It only works as long as your willing to define "the economy" as those individuals who control most of it. I'm not talking the top 1%. I'm talking the top 0.01%
Since our standard of living is no higher - after accounting for technology, and adjusting for inflation - than it was in the 1960s, we could reduce out collective consumption at least to the level it was then, and see no loss in social services or collective goods. All that would change is that there would be a lot less excess floating around for the elite to skim off the top of.
Could you explain the bolded further?
-
@grantmeaname I was referring to 2handband's own hunter/gatherer principle of "do the bare minimum work necessary to sustain your existence, and spend the rest of your time fucking off. If everybody did this, it would be a happier world and we'd get to watch the horror that is industrial civilization collapse overnight." 2handband would not be able to enjoy his current lifestyle were it not for some aspects of modern society. So, I was referring to IBR as one example. Some, 2handband et al., may choose a lifestyle in which they do the bare minimum work (in the current system) and if they want to call it a hunter/gatherer principle, so be it. Good for them, we all live how we want, like I said I'm willing and happy to pay my share of taxes. My point was, if everyone did this, that bare minimum amount of work to sustain existence might go up in terms of real effort (as disability insurance, unemployment insurance, roads, IBR systems, loans for education etc. would go away or crumble). I wasn't trying to be anthropologically correct, just going off of 2handband's principle. Little bit of moral hazard involved but I digress.
@Bakari
I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I just want throw out there that standard of living is a fickle phrase and could mean a lot of different things to different people. I, for instance, with a bit of background in demography, would automatically associate standard of living as life expectancies from certain ages at different points in time (both total LE and healthy LE) or look at age-adjusted mortality rates but I see your point. I'm admittedly biased to try to not define standard of living in $. I think it's depressing in a way. I may be in the minority on that, that's fine. All that being said, I'm glad I was born in the 80's rather than prior to that.
As for reducing consumption back to levels in the 60's when standard of living (via $) was relatively the same, that's great in theory but.........the cost of many things has dropped in real terms. Aren't food, clothing, and virtually all technology products (after their inception) cheaper now? It's cool to think about but the problem with ceteris paribus is that the ceteris is never paribus.
-
Oh, I totally missed your intent there.
Yes, the tax code would have to be completely redone and the government would have to close welfare programs and find new ways to tax people that were more enforceable (like sales tax). I think 2handband recognizes that not everyone could live the way he does, and I think that he's okay with or proud of that fact... he mentioned that making the financial industries suffer by not repaying his loans was the reason he's doing it, for example.
-
My mobile home and land is paid for but the HOA, property tax, and fixed county utilities adds up to $277/mo. You are getting off pretty cheaply at $250/mo and I would say you have minimized it.
The good news is you can easily earn that much money in a few hours of work. There are an infinite number of ways to do it but one way is to buy and sell things on craigslist. Since you know guitars, start there. My friend makes quite a bit of money doing that he can't even play a tune.
A way to live cheaper and avoid extra work would be to make a squatter's shelter out in the woods. To me the small amount of work is worth the extra comfort but that is my personal preference.
BTW you should read the book "The Last American Man" by Elizabeth Gilbert. It is a biography of Eustace Conway, a man who lives the lifestyle you aspire to.
-
Fair enough. I revise my statement to "I also like living to 70 rather than 30". (FWIW, wikipedia said the worldwide life expectancy at birth for a female is 69.5, and the only source I could find on life expectancy at birth for hunter-gatherers said it ranged from 28-33. I'm not an anthropologist, so if there is a better source, I'm open.)
And as for living to 40, much of the age discrepancy is due to early childhood mortality.
Yes, and why is infant mortality lower nowadays? Is it not advances in medicine and technology?
I think you may have misunderstood what Grant is pointing out. People in hunter-gather times lived just as long as we do today. Life expectancy at birth does not tell you how young people die, it just gives you an average. Kind of like the difference between median income and mean income. Median income is a lot less than GDP divided by population, because a few ultra wealthy skew the numbers up. All the infants who die in their first year brings the average down. So when an anthropologist says life expectancy of xyz culture was 30 years, it doesn't mean that in that society people would consider 30 to be a ripe old age. Old age meant 60-80, just like it does today.
Life expectancy as of adulthood actually dropped with the invention of agriculture, and dropped further with the industrial revolution, and it is only recently beginning to get back to where it started with modern medicine.
I'm not saying whether in of this is good or bad either way, just wanted to point it out.
But as far as being tribe-based, I don't see how that can be imposed. Maybe ignorance was bliss back in the days when tribal societies were more prevalent with regard to individuality. But now, I just don't see how you can force transportation patterns (foot or bike only) on a large scale.
Easy. $20/gallon gasoline tax, with a gasoline tax credit for trucking companies and emergency services.
Oh, no you can't enforce it. It was more pie-in-the-sky than anything. But it also isn't just a matter of forcing subjective values. Humans aren't meant to be alone. In a way yes, you can "choose your own Utopia", but part of the good thing about tribes was that they were (presumably) forced. We think of choice as an invariably good thing, but sometimes the best thing for you is to love the ones you're with. Plus, some folks can't "choose their Utopia". Many elderly would love nothing more than to be surrounded by their kin in their last years, but they don't have that option. Instead, they live alone. That is the darkside to our individualistic culture. We think that what we really want is absolute freedom, but I would suggest that some filial duty might do us some good. I'm not saying I want to go back in time, and my family is every bit as dysfunctional as the next guy's, but I think there is something to be said for physical co-locality.
I think you are on to something here. I think freedom for freedom's sake is way too overemphasized in our culture, even when it harms both society as a whole and even the individual... but good lord is this becoming one hell of a thread hijack!
I mentioned long ago in the forum suggestions that there should be a dedicated philosophy category, but it got lost in the hundreds of other (also good) suggestions
-
Aren't food, clothing, and virtually all technology products (after their inception) cheaper now?
That is because of increases in technology, not because of consumption and the middle class working long hours.
And if money doesn't define SoL, that's even more argument against the idea that people shouldn't work the minimum they can to survive and be happy.
-
Sorry, I know all of my posts have nothing to do with the original idea of this thread.
$20/gallon taxes may be easy to think about (assuming for a second it is a solution) but let's be serious, that is the opposite of easy as far as feasibility in implementation. What is the overall point? Conserve fossil fuels? Slow the pace of greenhouse gas emissions? Okay, fine wouldn't that be lovely. Unfortunately, too many Americans are mobile (for career or leisure) and these values of freedom, for good and bad, are ingrained to a point where you will not convince a majority at a national level that a gasoline tax is a viable solution at this present time. Thus, freedom of mobility currently outweighs a $20/gallon gasoline tax used to counteract whatever negative effects current transportation patterns are having. Anything is possible at smaller locales and values do change over time. Would non-foot/bike methods be acceptable if alternative fuels were being used?
There is always the DWL component of an additional tax on the already taxed gasoline but that's too far of a tangent.
If there is an argument to work the minimum and that is what maximizes the utility for that individual, go for it. I'm quite happy working for various reasons not related to money (not excluding it altogether, of course). We as humans are usually rational actors, so, to each their own.
-
I'd suggest to you that if industrial civilization went away tomorrow, the vast majority of the world's population would be better off. the moment the people in the third world had access to the land that has been taken from them to mine raw materials for export to the first world or worse, to produce luxury crops for export to the first world, their lives would immediately improve. Only in the first world, a relatively small percentage of the human population, would things get worse, and even there only for awhile. I won't even go into how industrialization requires humans to be stuck in hundreds of millions of jobs that nobody would do if they had a choice, or how it's killing the planet.
Mmmm - I'd strongly disagree with you there. Living in a third world country (South Africa), and having travelled extensively in other third world countries, if "Industrial Civilization" went away tomorrow we would be in huge trouble. Even in poor countries, most people don't live off the land. And those who do live off the land? Their lives are generally a lot worse than people in the cities.