Re: Considering standard of living (was Re: Land of let's only talk about whats wrong with the US)

From: Matt Welland (matt@essentialgoods.com)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 20:10:38 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "Re: Politics, economics, irrationality are real phenomena."

    This thread strikes an interesting cord for me. In my opinion one of the
    unaddressed (and unintended) consequences of unbridled capitalism(*) is that
    over time natural resources, i.e. land, slowly ends up in the hands of a few.
    Carried to its inevitable consequence all the land is owned by a few very
    rich people who literally can deny life to the remaining population. For an
    in-depth exploration of one way to solve this pop over to www.henrygeorge.org
    and do some reading.

    (*) I'm not so good at economic terms but what I mean by capitalism is a
    system where ownership of capital (i.e. land etc.) is fundamental to the
    economic system.

    On Saturday 23 August 2003 11:07 am, randy wrote:
    > 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

    -- 
    Be strong, have patience, pay attention and live well.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 20:22:54 MDT