Living basic to save on bills
- Thread starter Biker
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
The time to talk of how unfair we are in Britain to have a reasonably comfortable standard of living is after all countries tax, and collect that tax from, their people to the same extent as we do. Some countries apparently make the choice to have vastly greater inequalities than we have in terms of even such a basic as food. So be it then, we mustn't interfere, as we are constantly being told but I won't waste a second (at £X per) worrying that I might be wrong not to live on £18 a week.
All the talk of the economics of desire is really about needs which expand as earlier needs are satisfied and that is fundamental to economics. However, the model is flawed as in fact people do not expand their needs or desires infinitely and at some point most reach a realistic ceiling where further things "might be nice" but are recognised as unobtainable without something like a Lottery win.
All the talk of the economics of desire is really about needs which expand as earlier needs are satisfied and that is fundamental to economics. However, the model is flawed as in fact people do not expand their needs or desires infinitely and at some point most reach a realistic ceiling where further things "might be nice" but are recognised as unobtainable without something like a Lottery win.
You are correct, mostly, Mr. boatman from Cornwall (say, do you know the Volga boatman by any chance?). But the choices that countries apprently make are very complicated things and they aren't made overnight. In some places, people even resist having such choices made, by which I mean, they resist the governement actually having a policy about something. That's the way it seems to work here. But never fear. Churchilll said that America will always do the right thing after it has done all the wrong things.
But the subject on page one isn't about government policy or macro economics. The question is whether or not he is really living a sustainable life, to put it one way, or is he making poor choices or is he sponging off the public or his neighbors. I imagine he thinks he is merely doing things to live within his means, which is not the way Thoreau saw things. Thoreau's idea, as I understand it, was to reduce his wants for unnecessary things in order to give himself more free time to do something other than work. After all, once our basic needs are satisified, the only reason (but not really) to work is to allow us to do something besides work. Even if we don't hoe a garden, if all we do is work, that is a kind of subsistence living.
I say that really isn't the only reason for work because we receive intangible benefits from working, too, the most basic of which is the opportunity to associate with other people. That's the "get out of the house" aspect. The funny thing about that is that at one time a shopkeeper or craftsman had his shop and did his work at home, along with his whole family.
Whether or not there are inequalities (which there certainly are) is beside the point. One eventually realizes that constant upward striving isn't necessary for a good life not more than having to pass every car on the road on your way home at night. That's what I call the roller derby theory of commuting. It isn't getting there first that counts to those people; it's just passing them on the way. But I digress, again. Is that man doing it the best way? Would it work for everyone? How long do you suppose he'll manage that way? Thoreau only lived "in the woods" for a relatively short time, long enough to "transact some personal business."
The rich get their riches from the rest of us, you know. But even they usually don't eat any more than we do. At least none of the big eaters I know are rich. The rich may still spend more on food but not a lot more, at least if we don't include eating out and--drinking. Of course, eating out is usually not necessary and certainly drinking isn't but that might be an interesting point for discussion. I do know the rich either live in bigger houses or more expensive houses but their Rolex doesn't keep better time than a Timex and they both keep on ticking.
I will admit that probably most of us do a little sponging, taking advantage of whatever may come our way. In fact, just like right now, I do much on borrowed time. I am deeply in debt for time.
But the subject on page one isn't about government policy or macro economics. The question is whether or not he is really living a sustainable life, to put it one way, or is he making poor choices or is he sponging off the public or his neighbors. I imagine he thinks he is merely doing things to live within his means, which is not the way Thoreau saw things. Thoreau's idea, as I understand it, was to reduce his wants for unnecessary things in order to give himself more free time to do something other than work. After all, once our basic needs are satisified, the only reason (but not really) to work is to allow us to do something besides work. Even if we don't hoe a garden, if all we do is work, that is a kind of subsistence living.
I say that really isn't the only reason for work because we receive intangible benefits from working, too, the most basic of which is the opportunity to associate with other people. That's the "get out of the house" aspect. The funny thing about that is that at one time a shopkeeper or craftsman had his shop and did his work at home, along with his whole family.
Whether or not there are inequalities (which there certainly are) is beside the point. One eventually realizes that constant upward striving isn't necessary for a good life not more than having to pass every car on the road on your way home at night. That's what I call the roller derby theory of commuting. It isn't getting there first that counts to those people; it's just passing them on the way. But I digress, again. Is that man doing it the best way? Would it work for everyone? How long do you suppose he'll manage that way? Thoreau only lived "in the woods" for a relatively short time, long enough to "transact some personal business."
The rich get their riches from the rest of us, you know. But even they usually don't eat any more than we do. At least none of the big eaters I know are rich. The rich may still spend more on food but not a lot more, at least if we don't include eating out and--drinking. Of course, eating out is usually not necessary and certainly drinking isn't but that might be an interesting point for discussion. I do know the rich either live in bigger houses or more expensive houses but their Rolex doesn't keep better time than a Timex and they both keep on ticking.
I will admit that probably most of us do a little sponging, taking advantage of whatever may come our way. In fact, just like right now, I do much on borrowed time. I am deeply in debt for time.
Never met a boater from Russia BlueTrain but a lot of my acquaintances are very vulgar boatmen.
The very simplest lives are of course lived by some of the rich. In a way they can afford to. Isn't it true that thinness in the USA can equate to higher incomes?
Thoreau is interesting, using a rock as a paperweight but then it was thrown out because is required dusting. Nice observation on Thoreau but also a comment on his social background. You can live with practically nothing except that that little must be kept clean. Pride in their immediate environment is what used to distinguish the Poor from those living in poverty. The original subject of this post seems to be living in poverty
I agree that constant upward striving isn't necessary which was one of the flaws of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as commonly interpreted. Most people except the mentally ill do have a ceiling to their needs that mostly corresponds to reality, especially after the credit crunch.
The very simplest lives are of course lived by some of the rich. In a way they can afford to. Isn't it true that thinness in the USA can equate to higher incomes?
Thoreau is interesting, using a rock as a paperweight but then it was thrown out because is required dusting. Nice observation on Thoreau but also a comment on his social background. You can live with practically nothing except that that little must be kept clean. Pride in their immediate environment is what used to distinguish the Poor from those living in poverty. The original subject of this post seems to be living in poverty
I agree that constant upward striving isn't necessary which was one of the flaws of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as commonly interpreted. Most people except the mentally ill do have a ceiling to their needs that mostly corresponds to reality, especially after the credit crunch.
Nice to hear about your friends. I suppose one could say there is intentional poverty and there is poverty forced upon one's self by circumstances beyond one's control, which is probably more often the case. There is also simple living or plain living, variously defined but not necessarily at a poverty level, whatever that might be at the moment. There's also just plain destitute, which I imagine is your circumstances when you aren't even getting enough to eat.
I also get the feeling that somewhere below the surface in this thread is the idea that our lives are controlled by others if we aren't rich. I doubt that is true, though our lives are influenced by others in one way or another, although nothing good or bad is implied by that. To an extent, we can choose to ignore many things, some at our own risk. One thing that might be said about the rich and presumably powerful (thought not necessarily so), is that they sometimes tend to pretty much ignore any law or social convention if it pleases them, although I am not suggesting all rich people are like that. At a more down to earth level, just think of those (other) drivers who ignore all traffic lights and speed limits, although I am confident no one here drives like that, if only because your motorcar won't go that fast. But the rich sometimes get away with a lot. We'd probably be better off not discussing how they came to be rich but chance are it wasn't entirely the result of "honest" work.
I keep wondering what sort of neighbor the original subject might be, nice fellow that he might otherwise be. I think we have a social obligation to be a good neighbor and that sort of precludes a lot of activities, only some of which might be legally prohibited, and this is true where ever you might have a home, be it a stone tower or a canvas tent. Now an interesting thing is that a member of a stone age tribe living in the upper Amazon may be living under more social constraints than we are, although they will not be written down and may seem unfamiliar to us, even though they may not in fact have close neighbors.
I also get the feeling that somewhere below the surface in this thread is the idea that our lives are controlled by others if we aren't rich. I doubt that is true, though our lives are influenced by others in one way or another, although nothing good or bad is implied by that. To an extent, we can choose to ignore many things, some at our own risk. One thing that might be said about the rich and presumably powerful (thought not necessarily so), is that they sometimes tend to pretty much ignore any law or social convention if it pleases them, although I am not suggesting all rich people are like that. At a more down to earth level, just think of those (other) drivers who ignore all traffic lights and speed limits, although I am confident no one here drives like that, if only because your motorcar won't go that fast. But the rich sometimes get away with a lot. We'd probably be better off not discussing how they came to be rich but chance are it wasn't entirely the result of "honest" work.
I keep wondering what sort of neighbor the original subject might be, nice fellow that he might otherwise be. I think we have a social obligation to be a good neighbor and that sort of precludes a lot of activities, only some of which might be legally prohibited, and this is true where ever you might have a home, be it a stone tower or a canvas tent. Now an interesting thing is that a member of a stone age tribe living in the upper Amazon may be living under more social constraints than we are, although they will not be written down and may seem unfamiliar to us, even though they may not in fact have close neighbors.
It's been pointed out to me some of my posts here are righteous and offensive. Righteous I saw immediately upon the pointing and apologise.
Any trashing of an idea was intended to be a trashing of an idea and the idea alone. Not the person having it, why they have it, why the believe it, if they pursue it or anything else.
Nonetheless I apologise unreservedly for any offense caused.
Any trashing of an idea was intended to be a trashing of an idea and the idea alone. Not the person having it, why they have it, why the believe it, if they pursue it or anything else.
Nonetheless I apologise unreservedly for any offense caused.
I am too slow on the uptake because I wasn't offended first time around, Mr Swallow. You could post it again if you want to give me another chance to be offended.
And to Mr Boatman (of Cornwall), our perception of our needs are probably influenced by advertising as much as anything these days. That's why we all apparently have so many pocket knives. In fact, I waiting on my latest one right now. I will never be rich by most standards of the world with internet access but I can afford to buy any pocket knife that tickles my fancy, provided it doesn't cost more than, say, $20 or about £12.50 give or take. The rich, on the other hand, probably aren't buying pocket knives.
And to Mr Boatman (of Cornwall), our perception of our needs are probably influenced by advertising as much as anything these days. That's why we all apparently have so many pocket knives. In fact, I waiting on my latest one right now. I will never be rich by most standards of the world with internet access but I can afford to buy any pocket knife that tickles my fancy, provided it doesn't cost more than, say, $20 or about £12.50 give or take. The rich, on the other hand, probably aren't buying pocket knives.
I dont think anyone took specific offence to what you were saying they just as strongly disagreed with what you said as you did them, The realisation that this was going nowhere just set in...
I have never known anyone who lived much like the person in the original reference. However, I have know a few people who did live very basic and frugal lives and were apparently very good at living within their means. I suppose it is possible under certain circumstances, next to impossible under others.
These people all lived out in the country. No doubt things are different in the U.K. but in some places, if you can manage to keep your property taxes paid and if no corporation covets your land (in which case, God help you), you will be pretty much left alone. No one will come around to make sure the wiring in your house is up to code or to see that you have shoveled the sidewalk after the last snow. Some counties have very small populations and the local government just doesn't have the ability to do much checking up on people, even if they wanted to. This is all a good thing because there are a lot of people barely making it in this country. Oh, they will have electricity and no doubt a telephone but chance are, not a cell phone (don't even have one myself) or internet access. That really eats into your disposable income anyway. They will keep a garden and heat with wood or coal (usually coal where I'm from) and maybe even cook with wood (that's getting to be unusual). Basically they just don't consume the way others do.
These people all lived out in the country. No doubt things are different in the U.K. but in some places, if you can manage to keep your property taxes paid and if no corporation covets your land (in which case, God help you), you will be pretty much left alone. No one will come around to make sure the wiring in your house is up to code or to see that you have shoveled the sidewalk after the last snow. Some counties have very small populations and the local government just doesn't have the ability to do much checking up on people, even if they wanted to. This is all a good thing because there are a lot of people barely making it in this country. Oh, they will have electricity and no doubt a telephone but chance are, not a cell phone (don't even have one myself) or internet access. That really eats into your disposable income anyway. They will keep a garden and heat with wood or coal (usually coal where I'm from) and maybe even cook with wood (that's getting to be unusual). Basically they just don't consume the way others do.
Quite a few of them around here. The difference in the UK is that there is no property tax to pay if you (officially) earn below a certain amount and that internet is much, much cheaper here than in the US (unusual, for most things its the other way around). There certainly is an "under culture" of rural dwellers here. Whether its a good thing these people exist is a subjective judgement - they certainly do not contribute materially to the cost of the country (schools, roads, health), on the other hand they probably claim far less than they could and just want to be left alone.
Leaving aside the financial arguments, I am in favour of leaving people alone who can maintain their own lifestyle.
You tread on dangerous ground, sir, by asking if it is a good thing or not if certain people exist. Myabe you could ask if they have lives worth living.
There are numbers of supposedly homeless people living in this country. Most people are barely aware of their existence in that they are both literally and figuratively invisible, yet are nevertheless mentioned quite often in the news. Some of the camp out in public parks and forests, living in tents. Some live in shanties hidden away in a neglected patch of woods. In the city they can be found camped out on a heating grate (vent from an underground passage from which heat escapes) or in some out of the way spot where they won't be chased away. The can be found within a block of the White House. I suppose one could say these people have no value. They are unquestionably a public nuisance, though they don't rob banks or shoot people, or at least I don't think they do. But in some ways, they are doing pretty much the same thing the hero of page 1 is doing, which is getting by. In no way do they contribute materially to the cost of the the country but at the same time, they aren't any drain on it, either.
There are numbers of supposedly homeless people living in this country. Most people are barely aware of their existence in that they are both literally and figuratively invisible, yet are nevertheless mentioned quite often in the news. Some of the camp out in public parks and forests, living in tents. Some live in shanties hidden away in a neglected patch of woods. In the city they can be found camped out on a heating grate (vent from an underground passage from which heat escapes) or in some out of the way spot where they won't be chased away. The can be found within a block of the White House. I suppose one could say these people have no value. They are unquestionably a public nuisance, though they don't rob banks or shoot people, or at least I don't think they do. But in some ways, they are doing pretty much the same thing the hero of page 1 is doing, which is getting by. In no way do they contribute materially to the cost of the the country but at the same time, they aren't any drain on it, either.
Bluetrain, they aren't "supposedly homeless" - they are homeless. They suffer from everything from the complete inability to access routine healthcare to a lack of facilities to bathe or cook food.
How many years have you personally been on the streets?
Whoa, there Nelly. How can you tell if someone is homeless just by looking at them? Undoubtedly those I mentioned are, if appearances are anything to go by. Many here also have no access to health care and not because they are homeless (we don't have National Health in the United States--and probably never will). Some do have access to shelters now and then, although they would still be homeless. Even those with homes have problems, although much is done privately to help people out. Much is also done to try to just get the problem moved to somewhere else.
What part of the U.S. do you live in? I've never lived on the street, supposedly. I imagine it was only because I wasn't in the right (meaning "wrong") part of town when I was in London that I saw no such thing there but I didn't not spend all my time in the touristy places. I did notice that some neighborhoods have a preponderance of Asian residents. We were there just after the riots that year. Didn't see any of that either but that was also when the war in Libya was going on and that's all that was on the news. We weren't having so many riots that year.
What part of the U.S. do you live in? I've never lived on the street, supposedly. I imagine it was only because I wasn't in the right (meaning "wrong") part of town when I was in London that I saw no such thing there but I didn't not spend all my time in the touristy places. I did notice that some neighborhoods have a preponderance of Asian residents. We were there just after the riots that year. Didn't see any of that either but that was also when the war in Libya was going on and that's all that was on the news. We weren't having so many riots that year.
Similar threads
