From: randy (cryofan@mylinuxisp.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 09:07:24 MDT
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:44:02 -0700, you wrote
>
>On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 07:25 PM, Spike wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by the term "support". If
>> one is satisfied with the standard of living they
>> had "then," one minimum salary is way more than sufficient
>> to make it happen.
>
>Minimum wage is below subsistence levels for families with children.
>
And it is just barely subsistence in large metro areas for just one
person.
>> We expect more now, so it should
>> come as no surprise that it costs more.
>
>Actually, we expect less. For instance, it seems perfectly reasonable
>for people to pay 200-600k for a CONDO in West LA/Santa Monica.
>
>Now, if you're a decent earner (90k-150k) that'll take you
>approximately 30-years to pay for assuming you spend less than half
>your earning on your home.
>
>If you're a "not-quite-so-decent" earner and are in the "average"
>category, 40-60k, you can't afford to buy a condo in West LA/Santa
>Monica - EVER. You can get the same kind of thing in Pasadena or
>something.
>
>Now, compare to just 40 years ago - my Grandfather bought his VERY NICE
>house in Arcadia (kind of an upscale Pasadena at the time and now) for
>20k (which was A LOT). He was a "decent" earner for the time and paid
>for his house inside of 10 years.
I think a lot of this is due to how people who already own houses are
able to keep people who do not own houses from building or placing
some sort of cheap residence (such as a mobile home) on property
nearby (which is the only way you can get utilities at a reasonable
price--live near other people). Once again, our laws and regulations
model animal societies, in that they are created by and used by those
who currently have power and status in order to preserve their power
and status. We call it NIMBY politics, but it is really about those
who "have," keeping down those who "do not have." Enforcement of
scarcity enriches those who "have," and they do the enforcing through
voting.
>When he sold his house, he pocketed something like (I don't know the
>exact number) 500k (1990) but obviously couldn't afford to re-buy the
>same house with the money. (He's happily retired in La Jolla just in
>case you were worried about him... 88 years old and still kicking! A
>closet transhumanist, he's blind and wants to have his eyes replaced
>with artificial eyes, but can't because the FDA doesn't approve of the
>surgery...)
Yep. THat is one thing that everyone here agrees with--the FDA is
evil.
>> Earning a
>> subsistence level survival is cheaper and easier now
>> than ever before, and getting more so all the time.
>
>20 seconds on Google will show this to be false.
>
>Try starting here:
>
>http://www.weingart.org/institute/
>
>> One needn't even work: standing on a city streetcorner
>> with a "Will Not Work for Anything" sign will get you
>> all the donations needed to survive.
>
>Sure, if you don't mind sleeping in your own urine.
Well, I guess there is one way that living is cheaper today: our
agricultural technologies and market distribution systems are so
efficient that we can buy enough beans and rice to survive for
pennies. But where do you cook it? NIMBY politics precludes this
lifestyle through legal means.
>> ...Then, you could pay for a piece of land capable of
>> sustaining your own family within 7 years by working...
>>
>> Today you can earn enough to support yourself in
>> a similar manner by working only a few months.
>
>Well it depends on what you do.
>
>Ebay - Real Estate, 40 acres (remember, 40 acres and a mule) with a
>house - farmable land.
>
>Generally well over 150k. I don't know about you, but earning and
>KEEPING 150k nowadays is a big deal "for most people".
>
>> Look around you, Robbie. Farmland is as cheap as,
>> well, dirt. It costs practically nothing.
>
>More than 1000/acre generally. You need about 40 acres to live on,
>that's 40,000. I happen to have it, but then I make good money.
>"MOST" people are negative in the cash arena.
Yep. THat is one thing I have noticed about some of the people on this
list--either they are all rich (Natasha seems to think many are), and
think everyone is like them, or else they have totally bought
into--and never emerged from-- the dotcom-stock market bubblethink of
the late 90s. Or both....
>CF - http://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/jopovw/220.html
>
>Mostly due to inflation, rising BASIC costs of real estate,
>consolidation of income at the top 5% of earners, and of course the
>personal factors - lack of education, foolish spending, etc.
Or just plain old bad luck.....
>
>"Most People" even though empirically are moving backwards in wealth
>creation still believe that they're saving money. (If you put 2000
>into an IRA this year, you think you're saving money, but if you've
>incurred more than 2000 in debt, you're losing money generally by 9% or
>more. "Most People" incurred more than 2000 in debt/negative finance
>last year.)
>
>> If all
>> you need to do is eat, like the "then" people, it
>> is so simple even the hippies managed it, after
>> a fashion.
>
>Where'd you pull this one out of? My parents were "hippies" that lived
>on a commune for a short time. Few of those succeeded. Very, Very few
>of them made it for more than 10 years. I doubt you could find more
>than 100 examples of "American Kibutz's".
>
>> But there is little need for all that effort. Most
>> farmers will let poor people glean the fields after
>> a harvest today, and there is *plenty* of discarded
>> clothing available for nothing or nearly so, clothing
>> much more comfortable, durable, practical and even
>> fashionable than anything the "then" people could
>> have managed.
>
>I don't know what makes you think this, but if you go onto the Dole
>Pineapple farm in Hawaii, they'll shoot you. And if you go into the
>Del Monte Tomato farms, they'll have you arrested. "MOST" farmland
>that's producing now is owned and operated by major corporations that
>don't appreciate "gleaning". I think you're thinking of the Biblical
>Law, but that was circa 4000 BC - TIMES HAVE CHANGED.
Amen, brother!
>> If you don't care for any of the luxuries that we
>> have today, the cars, the electronics, the internet,
>> the medical care, the stuff that the "then" people
>> didn't have, earning a living has become so simple
>> as to be trivial today. sp
>
>I don't know about you, but I pay $40/month for my home DSL and you can
>buy a computer now for less than 200, plus another $100 or so for
>monthly.
>
>On the other hand, food bills for a family of four are around
>$2000/month. By FAR the biggest expenses are Rent/Mortgage and Food.
Amen, brother!
.......
>
>Which states that great progress has been made in health since the turn
>of the century BUT it does it's survey based on coal-mining. Now, coal
>mining while dangerous, is no longer as large an industry as it was in
>1900 and this study, while an interesting study of coal-mining related
>deaths, is just baloney WITH THAT HEADLINE. The truth is, as it was
>then, MOST PEOPLE DIE of accidental deaths, followed by whatever the
>current flavor of disease is (polio, cancer, etc.)
>
>And the Extropic point in all of this is that the bottom line is that
>the death rate continues to be 100%. Now you can make yourself feel
>better about having better food (like In-N-Out) and better water
>(probably false) but making a case for an overall improvement in the
>quality and length of life is pretty hard when you actually look at the
>data.
>
>NOT THAT things can't be potentially better, just that they are MERELY
>potentially better.
I really think that life is better than it was earlier this century,
mainly because of several important vaccines--polio, etc., and also
because of incremental engineering improvements and efficiencies that
have given us a huge and efficient infrastructure that brings goods to
market like never before. When it comes to engineering, everything
seems to just keep getting better and better and better. At least in
the consumer marketplace. But forget about organizations like
NASA--that is a joke....
Also, in combination with that, we have an accumulation of so many
middle class people which makes it very easy for products to be
developed and sold. This promise of potential profit from such a vast
market of consumers offers an irresistible attraction for capital
investment. And we benefit from that in so many ways....
So in some ways, the extropian/freemarketeerism philosophy is correct,
in that it builds a better future--IN THE LONG RUN. But what about the
fact that in the long run, we are all dead? (or at least that is how
it has worked till now....)
What I personally care about is making enough money to make sure that
I am cryopreserved in the best manner possible, and also while I am in
the dewar, that the USA is able to maintain a STABLE culture and
nation in the meantime. I could go on, but I need to work on my
bathroom plumbing. WHy is it that women get so upset when the plumbing
acts up...some kind of evolutionary thing? How does this relate to
hunter gatherer lifestyles?....anyway....
-------------
-Randy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 09:15:49 MDT