At 07:35 2004-02-03 +1300, I wrote "Re: David living on _so_ little." {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14049 after signing-in}: [Gary: ] David you wrote in "structural unemployment response /Moving back home" {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14025 }: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "_If_ you provide little social benefit (to your family, friends, and the wider community), you _should_ (an ethical/moral judgement) reduce the cost of keeping you alive (monetary and emotional) until they are about even. Hence _my_ choice to live on US$900 _per_year_ (US$17.25 a week)." {And in my "pass on ...": "Almost no-one in NZ, USA, Britain etc. realises how much freedom-of-action you get by living (sharing accommodation with others) on very little."} - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 10:47 2004-02-02 -0000, Gary wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14033 }: I have meant to ask you this question but keep forgetting: Could you really live on this low amount of money if your wife did not have monied employment? (She does as I recall.) Could you both live on US$1800 per year where you are now, at a relatively similar quality of life? Even though your total money outlay each year just for yourself might only be $900, wouldn't the average total outlay per person of your family's yearly total outlay exceed that? In other words, don't you benefit in part from your wife's monied income, to arrive at such a low figure? ... So in essence, isn't your $900/year partly subsidized by your wife's employment -- simply because you share resources? Gary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · We're talking about two things, related but different, here. -(1)-: Balancing your own benefit to otthers, with your own cost of staying alive. · That is, if you ceased living, how much (if any) benefit would be lost, versus how much in the way of expense no-longer-needed, would be gained. · Here, it's your actual monetary cost, paid by yourself and anyone else because you are there, which has to be included in drawing this balance. · That's what _I_ was talking about in the above excerpt. -(2)-: Gary's question: "_Are_ you actuually counting in the cost of _all_ that you use?" [My paraphrase. D.] · And I don't expect my wife (or 99.99% of all similarly-well-off people) to be willing to live on as little as I do, so I won't be addressing Gary's hypothetical question involving _her_. (I did comment in 1999; see bottom.) These are the questions: "Could you really live on this low amount of money if your wife did not have monied employment?", and: "isn't your $900/year partly subsidized by your wife's employment -- simply because you share resources?" · There is an assumption that the things I use and eat would stop being bought (or paid-for if regular costs) if I didn't use or eat them: this computer, the telephone line-rental, the defective fruit (can't think of any others). * First: I have paid half the property-tax and repair-and-maintenance costs since the time we had 5 people living in this house. So my accommodation cost is not being subsidised by wife, government or anyone. It's true that we have cheap accommodation costs: our house was totally paid-for within a couple of years of buying it, and as a very cheap house on a tiny plot of land, the property-tax is well below the average for Greenhithe. This was our plan all along; to minimise the costs we have no further control over. * Computer: It would still be here if I wasn't here. For 13 years now I have taken great care to be "out of the way" in my use, that is, I use this computer _only_ when no-one else is (or might be) using it, such as from 4 a.m. every day. (Gary, you may remember those times I've quickly finished an e-mail with "Gotta go; daughter's arrived" or something similar.) As far as electric power cost is concerned, this is zero (over the year) since I run it on free energy from the sun (I used my own savings for the capital cost of my photovoltaic panels, batteries and inverter, and will do the same for replacing batteries in some future year). An accountant would say I'm losing the opportunity-cost of those capital amounts, the interest on a term-deposit (since I would not enter the stockmarket - too risky for me), but I already have a lot of money saved and have put that in a low-interest account with Prometheus Ethical Finance who lend it out at low interest to socially-desirable small borrowers; so _I_ don't count opportunity-cost as a real cost. (If I did it would be peanuts.) * Phone: Similarly, both the others here make great use of the phone, my wife for internet connection, and daughter for both that and normal use. So it would still be here if I wasn't here. My use costs nothing (New Zealand requires the phone company to provide free local calls: ihug.co.nz is within our local-calling area). * Fruit: We have an arrangement where the others put fruit they don't want to eat (an apple showing rot, strawberries going mushy, orange with mould growing on it, bananas that are too black or bruised) in a particular place and I cut out the "bad" (though not in every case: I have no qualms about mushy strawberries and certain kinds of mould) and eat and enjoy them. Without me, these would _all_ have been thrown in the rubbish bin (later to be emptied in the garden; would be a compost heap, but we throw out too little for that). * I use so _very_little_ of anything, that I cannot think of others. I have no use for a car (though if asked, I'll drive my wife's car e.g. to pick her up from her bus if it's too far to walk, like middle of Auckland). I wear old clothes mostly, often things my tall sons grew out of six to twelve years ago. I'm currently wearing (inside-out) a red KFC shirt of my son's, from the time their style was red shirt and black trousers. Most of my walking is barefoot, begun when I didn't want to pay for shoes; I went barefoot to that cousin's funeral. When necessary (heavy load), I wear some leather boots my second son grew out of (they were made in Fiji). I don't use shampoo etc, just Sunlight dishwash liquid; that and toilet paper is included in my annual cost. The others produce enough clothes to wash, that my same-three-items once every ~4 days, is unnoticeable. I get no haircuts; nailtrimmer is used when others aren't, and so on. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ · I was going to refer you to my 1999 "Diversity in small groups" post {at: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/deep-ecology/jun99/msg00644.html } but the CSF site is down, so it is copied below. At 15:58 30/09/99 +1200, I wrote [to the Deep Ecology list]: > > That is, I currently believe that if everyone on earth was living like >me, we 6 billion humans would be ... and all other species still living >would be able to flourish. In fact a material standard-of-living quite a >bit higher than my present one would still be sustainable, measured by ... ** That was to emphasise how my views differ from those of [certain others] i.e. that without question, by dropping our consumption to almost nothing (and living densely, closer to the oceans and the equator), even 6 billion of us would allow the Deep-Ecology "flourishing" for all other species. Then we would have to ask ourselves: "what rate of consumption (and human population) would have no greater impact on other species than is the typical effect of one species on those around it?" ** Now I want to explore the possibility that, at least in small groups, sufficient "flourishing" for most people could be a result of significant _differences_ in consumption, within the group. As examples, I look to: (1) the Lord of a Manor and his serfs; (2) our family of 4 or 5; (3) a village in Europe ten years after the Black Death (bubonic plague). ** It's an attempt to put a "real life" overlay onto the patently false "everyone on earth being the same" statements I and many others use. (1) ** I don't regard feudalism as inherently wrong; in fact, with its mutual dependence relationships, it has much to teach us about living sustainably. Being human, there were obvious "bad eggs", and since power corrupts, the Baron was more likely to be such than the ordinary man or woman. What I (at least) know little about, is examples of where a valley with its villages and Manor house was a happy place to live, for _many_ decades, and with luck, a few hundred years. ** I would guess that there would be a range of ways of living, from bare subsistence to the relative luxury of the Lord and his family, but typically each person or family group would be generally satisfied with life. The average for the people in such a valley could well be at a sustainable level of consumption (or impact on the planet's ecosystems). IMHO (2) ** Our family has a range of consumption (originally because I was determined to live within my means: an income of ~$3,200 per year), ranging from my wife's at something over $30,000 a year through my son's (and daughter's, after she returns from China later this month) probably in the $5,000 a year area, to my own, at under $1,500 a year. The lower-spending people benefit from "the scraps from the landlord's table". The (relatively) high-spending person buys things for herself (fruit, the occasional computer, car transport) which then filter down (or excess is given) to the low-spending people. My son, for example, really values the good-condition fresh fruit she buys weekly, while I willingly eat the better parts of the fruit rejected by the others. And the high income was enough to pay for not only her own visit to friends in Kenya and her mother in Wales, but also to gift the plane fare (to Beijing) to our daughter so she could have months of Mandarin language immersion. ** Again, a factor of more than 20 in consumption rates, yet we're all happy with our very different ways of life. And close to sustainable I'm guessing. (3) ** I picked "10 years after the Black Death" as the last time (ignoring wartime) I'm sure there were too few people to do the necessary jobs, in quite a large region. ** I visualise a European village at this time as having arable farmers, herders, woodsmen, a hunter or trapper, and several cottage industries making objects and materials in high demand. All people there would be valued, including the village idiot and of course the visiting friar. But the consumption rates could well have varied greatly, from the (relatively rich) senior family, maybe a merchant, to the roust-about who is basically "hands for hire" living behind a shed. There would be a certain amount of hand-outs from the richer to the poorer, and some of the poor might have resented the wealth differential, but I'm guessing that for most decades, most of the people would be happy enough. The (relatively) frequent holiday celebrations would have helped keep people willing to tolerate their conditions. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ David. <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 08:34 2004-02-03 +1300, I wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14057 }: The answer is no, but I don't suggest _anywhere_ that living on your own is sustainable. This is why I added-in, my "pass on ..." comment: "Almost no-one in NZ, USA, Britain etc. realises how much freedom-of-action you get by living (sharing accommodation with others) on very little." (cont.below) At 06:54 2004-02-02 -0000, Gary wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - David, I don't think I expressed myself well. Let me try again. My real question: if you were on your own, without your wife and family, could you live your current lifestyle on just $900 a year? Is it even possible when one considers more than just consumables? How about housing? You might own your home and so your housing costs may be minimal. But that home must have been purchased thanks to years of monied employment. So you are in essence partly living off wealth accrued during your past career. (I include your pension as part of this wealth as well.) Not to mention government-provided services like basic healthcare -- not available to Americans. What I suspect is that one could not possibly attempt this lifestyle philosophy (at least to the degree you do) if you were just starting out in life. IMO your true wealth far exceeds the stated outlay of $900 per year. And I include within your wealth that contributed by your wife because you do SHARE resources. Again, if you were on your own, I surmise that you would be paying far more than $900 per year even for the basic lifestyle you live. Keep in mind that I am not questioning your own choices. Just noting that $900 per year isn't the whole story IMO. Gary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · My daughter is in the circumstance you are _now_ asking about: "one could not possibly attempt this lifestyle philosophy (at least to the degree you do) if you were just starting out in life." · To reiterate: the individual-independence goal that has so ruined American society is not a goal suited to sustainable living - my own goal. · She knows she is likely to have to continue building up a capital amount large enough to be able to contribute to buying a _jointly_owned_ small-to- moderate house with several others, some time in the future. She now has few worries about this since, _by_living_on_very_little_ she is able to save a tiny amount even now, and when she gets a job she expects to enjoy doing, she will do as I did, and salt-away more than half of that income as savings. That's my guess, anyway; it depends on living in NZ. · Gary, I believe you are wrong to keep hammering at: "I include within your wealth that contributed by your wife because you do SHARE resources." · Why talk about an individual's _wealth_ when people don't naturally live as individuals? My wife contributes nothing to my _wealth_, if you are using that word to describe _how_ I live at the (IMO low) level that I do. · People have shared caves, hogans, cottages, villages since prehistory. · What are you actually saying about wealth? David. <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 09:10 2004-02-03 +1300, I wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14061 }: · You're asking for a different analysis (see below quotes from Diane). At 01:45 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14053 }: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If I may be so rude as to speak for Gary, I think what he was trying to get at it is the actual cost it would take to support you, David, (or any other individual trying to get by on the least amount possible). I realize your house is paid for, but I think it would be more accurate to take the initial cost of your home and spread it out over the entire length of your life (i.e., David spent $X amount on housing in his life, for an annual yearly average of Y) -- that would give us an idea of how much it costs per year to support an individual in shelter. The same goes for health care. I know that the NZ government provides health care -- but somebody's taxes actually pay for it. You, of course, worked for many years and paid lots in taxes. I am not trying to say you are somehow living off other's people's money. It's just that people IMO must have shelter, food, basic clothing, access to basic amenities (road, library, police protection, fire protection, etc,) and health care -- and it must be paid for. Even your low cost of living has hidden areas that have been paid for that actually brings the total annual dollar amount up. Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla., USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · And at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14058 Diane said: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. what I am interested in, so that I am intrigued by your answers to Gary's question, is to figure out -- exactly what is the *bare* minimum it takes to support a healthy individual in a western society? I think this leads back to our conversation we take up every now and then of what are the bare "necessities" that every person on the planet is entitled to. I understand that you are not promoting people take up your lifestyle. But it does serve as a helpful foundation for figuring what it costs to support an individual, as said earlier. Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · Diane's: "the *bare* minimum it takes to support a healthy individual in a western society" requires a different analysis from asking me about my _own_ costs, (which could admittedly include the $35,000 we paid for this house, spread over the ~45 years between 1980 and when I die). · You are asking about a "western society" like NZ in which the average person lives in a house like this, and the _political_system_ is like New Zealand's (a proper representative democracy, not like the USA) where the majority at least have decided to minimise costs and maximise benefits by having a single organisation for all 3.8 million people, to run police, a true (though basic) _health_ (not illness) system, libraries, a suitable balance between road and rail, etc. · This may be able to be modelled by an economist (NZ, Canada and Sweden could be case studies to use in building the model), and the answer would be _extremely_ interesting but would not be of any use to Americans since they would throw up their hands crying "Socialism!: No, not here!" and listen no further. · The fault in both Diane's and Gary's questions is that "doing things together" is outside their parameters. They want: "how much wealth do I, an _individual_, have to have, to live a *bare* minimum but healthy life." David. <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 10:18 2004-02-03 +1300, I wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14065 }: · Till now, I've been able to contribute something from my life. Here, I suggest ways of finding some numbers, but IMO they don't answer the question "exactly what is the *bare* minimum it takes to support a healthy individual in a western society?" which requires figures from my life IMO. (cont.below) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 02:34 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote: I'm not trying to be contrary, David, but I am not asking how much wealth you personally have to have. {and I never took it that way. D.} I am asking how much money (which is the symbol of labor we use in western society) does it take to support a healthy individual in a western society. For instance, if NZ spends $X million a year on health care in your country, then we can arrive at a per-year expenditure average it takes to provide health care for an individual. I also disagree that it is outside my parameter to "do things together." Just as in your country, American tax dollars pay for a variety of services that make my life possible -- clean water, sewer, walking paths, schools, etc. While government is indeed the administrative device by which society does these "things together" by providing these services to all people, someone's tax dollars do pay for these items. Thus if I know the annual budget for my local library and divide it by the number of people in my community, then I know I am receiving a benefit worth $X per person. Or perhaps you would prefer I say instead, Diane lives on $X amount per year and also derives benefits from a library system with a $Y million budget, a road system that is worth $Z billion, etc.? But now I am wandering into angels-on-a-pinhead territory and promise to be quiet. :^) Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla., USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · Economists can do those sorts of calculations (e.g. "if I know the annual budget for my local library and divide it by the number of people in my community, then I know I am receiving a benefit worth $X per person"). · I suggest you find out what the total budget for New Zealand is and divide it by our population for a per-capita cost of supplying the services (and government administration - fairly low in NZ) for all residents. Then add the corresponding figure for libraries, local roads, sewerage etc. by using the budget for the North Shore City. · This would give you a figure to play with, but while IMO it would be better than nothing, New Zealand figures aren't all that close to answering: "exactly what is the *bare* minimum it takes to support a healthy individual in a western society?". · That's because NZ is no longer near-sustainability, as it was in the early 1950s, and even near-sustainability is above "the *bare* minimum". · The basic premise is still unclear to me: why is a number of dollars (Gary's "wealth") wanted? You said: "money, the symbol of labor we use in western society", but what are you going to _do_ with that number ($Z)? · I still believe you're going to say to yourself "I should be able to live on $Z per year", or you'll want to tell somebody in their 20s: "If you earn a net of $Z you won't be a free-rider (a drain on society)". · I know American thinking typically is simple-minded, and thinks that the simple economic analysis based on the individual is satisfactory, but after watching the USA all my life (largely from just over the border) it's clear to me that this over-simple economic method just doesn't work. The idea that "$Z per person" implies something for a particular individual is clearly faulty, to me. It leaves out all the non-monetary part of life, for one thing - I don't want to put dollar values on such living-together and environmental parts of life. This is why I won't be collecting those budget amounts etc. myself. David. <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 05:12 2004-02-02 -0600, Ross Cannon wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14069 }: Diane and Gary, i believe you are making a good point in looking at a house purchase as needing to be amortized over a number of years and considering costs like health insurance and library, garbage monthly costs, but i think it is also valid for David to point out that he has a various times specifically pointed out most of those issues. regardless, the reason i've responded to this issue is to mention how valuable it is to have good examples in our lives. David pointed out that we can take much of the weight off of our shoulders and give ourselves the opportunity to see so many issues in a very new ways. i think it is important to push ourselves in various areas of our lives....to test whether our way of seeing something as difficult or even impossible is actually the truth. when i find myself questioning my resolve to park in the back of the parking lot i think of David on a hike with no shoes on and a backpack filled with books and smile as i choose a place in the uncrowded part of the store lot and stroll in. While i am certainly not in David's league austerity wise i do believe and prove that it possible to very consciously even in the US. i paid for my house 5 years ago and am able to live frugally enough that i am able to spend most of my time working for causes i believe in, reading, cooking and doing stuff i really think needs to be done without worrying about what it will pay. it is such a gift to see thing a new way. be well, Ross =-=--==--==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Understanding others is knowledge, Understanding oneself is enlightenment; Conquering others is power, Conquering oneself is strength. Laotsu "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." John Muir <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 12:09 2004-02-03 +1300, I wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14068 }: · OK, I'll give it a go, for my case. (Yes, I rely on libraries!;cont.below) At 03:31 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I understand your concern now, David, and I admit part of me likes the idea of an individual sustainable budget to strive for. But I feel as if what I'm looking more for is something like: "Look, folks, we know it costs this much for a person to eat, and this much to have a decent shelter, and we already spend this much on libraries per person, so here's what people need to pitch in for all of us to have a decent standard of living." I have no interest in proving that one person contributes more than another, or that one person doesn't pull her weight, or that if only I made this much money I wouldn't be a drain on society. Furthermore, it would be difficult to show anyway because much of what we derive benefit from is also inherited (an annuity from grandma, reading skills from great-grandpa, resistance to cancer from my paternal family, etc.) before we even get to the age where we earn money. We all contribute and we all drain IMO. Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla., USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · I'll start by pointing out that my goal is different from ".. for all of us to have a decent standard of living." · I've chosen this life to show the absolute _minimum_ that's needed (in this climate, 37 degr. lat., maritime) while buying all your consumables, to have good health and energy. It's not "a decent standard of living." It suits me, but not my family. · My _personal_ expenses of NZ$1,500 (or US$900) per year count-in jointly- provided (me and the others) goods and services; IMO my income tax and property-tax ("rates" in NZ), pay for my share of these below. {BTW, I still pay taxes on my government pension. Although everyone gets the pension, richer people are taxed higher so they get less of it.} · For those who want some detail, though: * Libraries: I've looked at the Thames-Coromandel District Council's Annual Report, rather than for the North Shore City, because TCDC is not as rich as NSC, but they do provide the sort of library services I have found to be sufficient (when living in Kauaeranga Valley in the end of our barn). That (1.5 MB in 5.5 minutes) Report http://www.tcdc.govt.nz/Information/Documents/PDFFiles/2003AnnualReport.pdf shows there are 25,176 people with average personal income of $20,958. Note: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "4. Donated Services The work of Council relies on the voluntary services of residents, particularly in the activities of parks and reserves, libraries, and foreshores. Since these services are not purchased by the Council and, because of the difficulty of determining their value with reliability, donated services are not recognised in these statements." and: "Cost of governance per rateable property: 2003 Actual: $99.80" "Either directly or through grants, Council provides and maintains, or supports the following key community facilities: • parks and reserves ... • 2 libraries ..." "Operational Assets: - Cost 2003 ... Library collections - $134,000 ..." "Note 14 - ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES OF EXPENDITURE - - - - - - - - - - - Cost 2003 ... Library collections - $55,000 {Total - - - - - - - - $189,000 } - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · $189,000/25,176 = $7.51 per person, for library service for the year 2003. · Are you sure you want me to continue? * Roads: When we arrived here in 1980 there was a marginally-2-lane road into Greenhithe, which allowed buses to pass by driving partly on the gravelled shoulders. IMO that is sufficient roading (since I walk to almost all the places I need to go I don't need more than a track): enough for a bus. Yes, maintenance is needed, but with only the amount of traffic we had here from 1946 to 1980 (I arrived first in 1946), maintenance is low-cost. I am simply going to guess that a third of the ~$600 per year that I paid in property tax in 1992: $200, went for road upkeep. And that was for a higher quality of road than is a basic necessity, IMO. * Police: The town of Thames has I believe only one policeman. I would guess that he is paid $35,000 per year, and he would use-up perhaps $15,000 as consumables and depreciation (building, equipment, car). So, spread over TCDC's 25,176 people, $50,000/25,176 = $2 per person. · I don't see enough reason for me to continue, particularly when I have included my share of all this within the taxes-plus-rates I pay. · The one thing I agree I should have included was my half-share of this house; Diane's: "I think it would be more accurate to take the initial cost of your home and spread it out over the entire length of your life". I expect to live to about age 90, based on my current lifestyle and the great ages of both my parents; so about 45 years after 1980. Total: $35,000/45 = $777.77, my wife paid half, so my share is $780/2= $390 · That has to be added to NZ$1,500 making it NZ$1,890 or US$1,130 not $900. · In comparison with the earlier LIM discussion indicating people in the USA should aim at living on about US$5,500, that's still _very_ low. David. <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> At 08:30 2004-02-03 -0600, Diane wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14083 }: Isn't it amazing how cheap these community services are, and yet people (at least a lot of people I know) are always complaining about their taxes? I agree with you about roads, David. Just think of the billions of dollars that could be spent on something else if even households had only one car, or people were limited to the number of miles they could travel in their personal auto. On the car free list, we had a posting of a man who commuted 340 miles round trip daily, although most of that was by train. Diane Fitzsimmons Norman, Okla., USA >-----Original Message----- >From: David MacClement [mailto:davd@ihug.co.nz] >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 5:10 PM >Subject: RE: [LessIsMore] David living on _so_ little. > >* $189,000/25,176 = $7.51 per person, for library service for the year >2003. > $200, went for road upkeep. And that was for a >higher quality of road than is a basic necessity, IMO. > > >* Police: $2 per person. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_X_ {some of the URLs are in "original economy", clickable at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14126 ): · Economy should include more than numbers, dollars, IMO. Greek *oikonomos*: (*oikos* house plus *nomos* from *nemo* manager) refers to what a Mrs Beeton type of housekeeper (or the highly-respected top slave in Greek times) did on a routine basis. (Continued below these quotes from Diane, Gary and me.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 01:24 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14053 }: > ... the actual cost it would take to support ... any individual trying to get by on the least amount possible ... housing:... an annual average of $Y would give us an idea of how much it costs per year to support an individual in shelter. ... people IMO must have shelter, food, basic clothing, access to basic amenities ... and it must be paid for. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 02:34 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14062 }: > I am asking how much money (which is the symbol of labor we use ...) does it take to support a healthy individual in a western society. > >... Just as in your country, American tax dollars pay for a variety of services that make my life possible -- clean water, sewer, ... my local library ... a road system that is worth $Z billion, etc. ... > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 12:29 2004-02-03 -0000, Gary wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14079 }: > I see a direct parallel between my own situation and that of David. > I am living a far more frugal life than my working wife -- in my attempt to eek out a living with no income other than from lifetime savings. (I get no pension or Social Security for another 2 years.) I believe that I DO owe much of my comfort to the fact that my wife works -- even though we have divided our assets and pay our bills equally ... > My life would probably greatly change if my wife were to die suddenly (apart from my grief over her loss). I would inherit her assets, of course. But I would not be able to continue my current lifestyle without significantly drawing upon those assets. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 03:31 2004-02-02 -0600, Diane wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14067 }: > what I'm looking more for is something like: "Look, folks, we know it costs this much for a person to eat, and this much to have a decent shelter, and we already spend this much on libraries per person, so here's what people need to pitch in for all of us to have a decent standard of living." > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 10:18 2004-02-03 +1300, I (David) wrote {at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/14065 }: · I[t] is simple-minded [to] think that the simple-economic-analysis based on the individual is satisfactory ... The idea that $N-per-person implies something for a particular _individual_ ... leaves out all the non-monetary part of life, for one thing - I don't want to put dollar values on such living-together and environmental parts of life. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · A housekeeper deals with a _group_ of people, many of whom have chosen to live under the same roof (and sharing some of the same spaces) for mutual benefit. Some of these benefits _should_not_ be quantified (in dollars) in my view. The housekeeper _does_ have these non-monetised aspects in his/her mind when making decisions, as well as (and often more important than) the financial side of housekeeping. · This is the original economy, and if consciously used by town and small- group managers instead of concentrating on "the bottom line", would bring much better results than relying on just numbers. It requires more complex thinking than a lot of managers (including the current US Administration) use now, but some people can do it very well. It's a normal part of being human, and it puzzles me that so many people want the extreme simplicity of dollar amounts. · So "dollars pay for a variety of services that make my life possible -- clean water" and: "here's what people need to pitch in for all of us to have a decent standard of living", which sees life as being analysable in dollars with no regard to the absolute necessity of living-together-in-groups (even of two) has to be misleading, faulty, and ultimately as damaging to community as the USA has been showing the rest of the world in the last 15 years. That's _my_ opinion, based on us _not_paying_ for clean water, etc. · Community-oriented living is normal. Individual-oriented living in the US model, is abnormal, distorted, and damaging. David.