A Moneyless Life for Over Ten Years

[SifuPhil]

The rich provide the needs of the poor. Who designs and builds our transportation system and all the rolling inventory? Who grows, harvests, packages and distributes to poor people's tables the food they need? Who makes the great medical discoveries and inventions that keep us old geezers alive and improves almost everyone's lives? Who... well, you get it.

The answer to all of the above is not poor people, but rich people! And that's why they're rich - they find a need and fill it, many of them putting in 15 - 20 hour days to do so! If that's called taking advantage of the poor, I can accept that!

The rich are taken advantage of by government a whole lot more than the poor are taken advantage of by the rich. Count on it!

Are you saying that it's only the rich that invent medical devices? That only the rich design and build tractor-trailers and trains? Or are you saying that the rich subsidize these inventions?

Sure, you've got your wealthy dilettantes over the ages that have had the time and money to putz around in their basements and discover a few things, but you also have legions of unwashed masses who have given us useful inventions.

As for growing food, etc. - I had to laugh at the vision of rich people in their fine clothes out in the fields, stooped over, hoeing and picking and weeding.

No, my friend - the rich oversee the poor. They control them, they tell them where they can live and how. They tell them what schools they can send their kids to. They even tell them how long they can live and what medical treatments they can avail themselves of.

"The rich are taken advantage of by the government"? Oh, please - they get the majority of the tax breaks and can afford all the high-priced legal and financial help to ensure that they hide the lion's share of their ill-gotten gains.

 

[TICA]

I've had this 'dream' for years that our entire family could live together; in separate homes with a bit of land for each, and have a farm that everyone could work. It would have huge veggie gardens and animals for our food. We'd all have our privacy, and be there for each other when needed, and if possible, have a money 'pool' someone could draw from in an emergency.

What's wrong with that picture?? Well, it most likely wouldn't work, is all. But a good dream, nevertheless.

Not a thing wrong with that picture and I'd love to have that situation. And.... regardless of what most people think, I'm one who truly believes this would work for my family. Will it happen? I doubt it, but if a situation came up where as a family, we would need to live together - I'm all for it and would look forward to it. I have 20 acres that will be subdivided so that my children can build homes there should they ever want to and I hope they do some day.

 

[Anne]

Not a thing wrong with that picture and I'd love to have that situation. And.... regardless of what most people think, I'm one who truly believes this would work for my family. Will it happen? I doubt it, but if a situation came up where as a family, we would need to live together - I'm all for it and would look forward to it. I have 20 acres that will be subdivided so that my children can build homes there should they ever want to and I hope they do some day.

TICA, I hope it can happen for you!! Not out of a bad situation, but because the family wants it that way. With our family (including siblings, in-laws, etc), we're so spread out it just wouldn't work, and of course, so many have their careers, and have to be in certain areas. But - I figure I can dream; LOL

 

[Happyflowerlady]

I really think that if there are enough people in the family, and they want to do something like this, that having kind of a family commune is a great idea.
My mother was sure that the End Times were coming anytime, and they had some property that they held onto for years and years, just so there would be a place that everyone could go to if the economy totally crashed, and we all needed a place to live together. She had all sorts of developments planned for the property, just never had the money to do any of it, so it would have been a hard thing for everyone to live there, if things had made it necessary.
Now, my family is kind of spread out all over, and all have their own life going, so there is no likelihood of us all ending up on a property together, but I still think it is a good plan for any family that can manage it, and wants to do that.

 

[Old Hipster]

I agree with Elzee. He uses money, just let's others do the work to earn it then mooches off those who work for a living. Reminds me of the professional welfare families.

I can't believe some people make a hero out of a bum.

I agree, I have worked hard all my life so I could take care of myself and not look for hand outs or free load off of others.

I bought a little old house in the early 70's and we are still in it. Except for this house, that has been paid for since 1984, everything else we have bought we saved up to buy it, no credit cards or loans.

The real heros are the ones who pull themselves up by their own boot strings.

 

[Penelope]

I've been looking into the many options for living "off the grid"; this interests me. The tiny house movement has gained popularity, but checking into my local codes recently left me thinking that there just has to be another way! (These were in-city regulations). I thought maybe being within walking or bike-riding distance in a small city would be ideal, but living in the city seems geared to keeping me working longer and continuing at a higher consumption rate than where I'd like to be.

Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?

 

[Penelope]

Anne, I'm right there with you! I've been dropping this little scenario into conversations with my family members for a few years now. Mostly, my peeps just shake their heads. :topsy_turvy:

 

[SifuPhil]

Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?

I would say that smaller is better, but then I'm a prejudiced minimalist.

Take a look at a typical European house or apartment and compare it to the square footage in an average American home - it's usually half the size or less. We have living rooms AND dens AND rumpus rooms AND basements - as if we NEED all that room to run around like kids.

When I was growing up we only sat in the living room to watch TV. Otherwise the center of activity was always the kitchen, and it was barely 12'x12' but fit our family of 6 along with any visiting relatives and friends.

The small house movement is indeed becoming more popular here, as we realize that we really don't NEED all that space (and the attendant overhead). What's that cute little mortgage buzzword that's being used today - "being underwater"? I see commercials on TV from Quicken Loans, bragging that they can help you "even if you owe $300,000 on your $150,000 house".

That's just insane.

It only makes sense, ethically and financially, to go small. We've been brainwashed into thinking that a big house, a white picket fence and 2.5 kids is the American Dream, but since the '60's it's been turned into a nightmare. I've been a home-owner (6,000SF loft and 5-acre glass/wood house in the woods) and I've been a minimalist (a 10'x12' rental room) - I much prefer the latter.

 

[rkunsaw]

For me, bigger is better. We have 25 acres and would like a lot more. Our house isn't so big ( would like more room for guests) but we have an old Travel trailer under a shed, a garage, a shop building a greenhouse and two other buildings for storing equipment.

I do think it's ridiculous to get over your head in debt but why be cramped for space when you can afford it? I would bet my place with all it's space is cheaper than a small house on a lot in just about any big city.

 

[SifuPhil]

Larry, I agree with you - put the money into the land and the working buildings rather than a fancy-schmancy house.

Personally I'd rather take my chances off the grid than on it. At least then I have only myself to blame when TSHTF.

 

[Happyflowerlady]

I've been looking into the many options for living "off the grid"; this interests me. The tiny house movement has gained popularity, but checking into my local codes recently left me thinking that there just has to be another way! (These were in-city regulations). I thought maybe being within walking or bike-riding distance in a small city would be ideal, but living in the city seems geared to keeping me working longer and continuing at a higher consumption rate than where I'd like to be.

Has anyone researched this topic enough that they feel one particular way is better (I use that word loosely) than other?

There is a book on amazon, and available cheap (and some days for free) at the Kindle store, and it is called "Trailersteading", by Anna Hess. It talks about starting out with an old, but livable mobile home on property, rather than trying to build a house from scratch. Old trailers are usually pretty easy to find at a very reasonable price, so the main expense is having it moved to the property. Of course, you could use a self-contained camper trailer that can be pulled up there with nothing more than a full-sized pickup.

I think that it is a smart thing to do whatever you can do to be self-sufficient; even if it isn't very much. The idea of a little place off-the-grid, and living off the land might sound like the best option, but it certainly is not for everyone, many of us seniors included.
But neither do we need to sit around in an apartment, watching re-runs on tv. Grow a little garden, even if it is only lettuce and tomatoes, and use containers if digging is no longer possible. Even if you live in an apartment, you can still grow plants in the sunny windows.
And don't overlook sprouting. Sprouts are over 30 times more nutritious than the seeds are unsprouted, and literally everyone can easily grow sprouts.

Even if you need to live in town because of your job, you can still use whatever area you have to grow your own garden, stock up on extra canned and dry items, and just do whatever else you can to be more self-sufficient.

 

[That Guy]

Living a moneyless life . . .