Tiny Living to Tiny House

[jebatty]

If everyone agreed with one point of view, life would be pretty small and uninteresting, indeed. Plenty of room for individual exceptions, and generalizations of all types usually are too broad. Just trying to better understand the tiny house ... tiny living romance.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

living in a house bigger than you can comfortably afford,shortchanges other areas of your life. Unless your the type that never goes anywhere. I like those month long vacations too much to do that.

 

[Jags]

Where would my pool table go?

 

[Grisu]

Where would my pool table go?

On the bookshelf?

 

[dougstove]

I worry about the de-capitalization of our lives and infrastructure, in favour of just-in-time, just good enough processes and buildings.
For example, for the vast areas of flat roof strip malls on the outskirts of every N.A. town, the construction is put up just well enough to survive just long enough for the rental income to keep ahead of the mortgage payments.
I do not think there is any real goal to 'pay them off', just keep the income ahead of the payments, until the building is demolished. The USA is probably ahead of my region, but even here in the boonies I am seeing acres of 1st and 2nd generation strip malls (15-30 years old) bulldozed, and replaced with fresh buildings, of no better quality.

The raw material, energy and environmental costs to 'do it right' and build a long-lived building are little more than a quick slap up job.
It is like the entire continent is becoming a temporary mining camp.

I could make the same argument for the Honda Fit (2007) I just traded that had a sturdy, solid cargo compartment, compared to the new 2015 model I rejected, where the cargo area is lined with felted cardboard, but the dashboard was lined with 'infotainment' options (barf). The car is the ultimate short haul grocery getter, but the new cargo compartment would be beat to pieces in two months. Interestingly, when I bought the Fit in 2007, Ford Focus had already gone to felted cardboard.

Or the luxury hotel I was placed into in China, resplendent with marble and brass, but with undrinkable water.
Even the components for my (ex) swimming pool decreased in lifetime over the past 15 years.

We have extracted what used to be long term capital investments from our system, and used them for current nominal consumption and economic growth.

 

[jebatty]

I had a weird feeling after watching a documentary on life in Guatemala in a small village where nearly everyone in the village lived in poverty. The income of these people per person was $1/day and that had to cover everything. Yet they banded together as a community to give/loan money to others as needed to pay the expense of medicine (not in the $1/day budget), for example. And they lived. Opportunity was bleak. The way out was practically nonexistent. Very tiny living.

 

[dougstove]

The per capita GDP of the world is ~$10,000 per person per year.
If you get more than that, why? If you get less, why?
I am not saying everyone should get the same amount, but on a global basis, $10,000 per head is the point of departure.
That means, for every person rising to $90,000 per person, 9 people have to fall to $1000.
cheerily yours from a very snowy New Brunswick.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I had a weird feeling after watching a documentary on life in Guatemala in a small village where nearly everyone in the village lived in poverty. The income of these people per person was $1/day and that had to cover everything. Yet they banded together as a community to give/loan money to others as needed to pay the expense of medicine (not in the $1/day budget), for example. And they lived. Opportunity was bleak. The way out was practically nonexistent. Very tiny living.

Probably why a good many are hopping the train thru mexico to get here. THe govt in most of these central american countries including mexico is rife with corruption. They will never get anywhere, until the people rise up and have a revolution against tyranny like we did. Or they will all come here,whichever comes first.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

The per capita GDP of the world is ~$10,000 per person per year.
If you get more than that, why? If you get less, why?
I am not saying everyone should get the same amount, but on a global basis, $10,000 per head is the point of departure.
That means, for every person rising to $90,000 per person, 9 people have to fall to $1000.
cheerily yours from a very snowy New Brunswick.

I dont think its quite as simple as that. It depends on a persons creativity. Example: you can carry water on your head for 2 miles every day for your whole life like they do in africa or you can get yourself a pipe and spend all that extra time improving other areas of yours and your familys life.

 

[jebatty]

I dont think its quite as simple as that. It depends on a persons creativity. Example: you can carry water on your head for 2 miles every day for your whole life like they do in africa or you can get yourself a pipe and spend all that extra time improving other areas of yours and your familys life.

I agree buy I also think it's not as simple as getting oneself a pipe. You are espousing the myth that everyone, if he or she only worked hard enough, could rise out of poverty and have a healthy, productive, and happy life. Not true for the population as a whole, may be partially true for a small % of members of the population.

Even in the US we "need" minimum wage workers, as we regularly hear from employers. And minimum wage is not a livable wage, so the difference must be made up from public and private support. Why do we hear this? Because owners, managers, shareholders profit off the back of the minimum wage worker. What isn't paid to one person gets paid the higher ups. And the higher ups control the economic system. Money breeds money, and money takes money from others. Everyone, no matter how hard he or she works, cannot be a doctor, CEO of a large company, a Wall Street financier, etc. Everyone with a family of four cannot even make $100,000+/year. And in addition to the fallacy of the absence of hard work as the reason for this, the world does not have the resources to support 6-9 billion people each consuming at a rate equal to or greater than the consumers of the US and other "advanced" nations.

This discussion has many branches and could go on forever. My point in my post was that "we" argue we cannot not live tiny when the fact is that most of the world lives very tiny. And the tiny we say we cannot live is unbelievably extravagant to a very large portion of the world's population. Weird.

 

[Jags]

One mans cave is another man's palace...

 

[Ashful]

I dont think its quite as simple as that. It depends on a persons creativity. Example: you can carry water on your head for 2 miles every day for your whole life like they do in africa or you can get yourself a pipe and spend all that extra time improving other areas of yours and your familys life.

While I am quick to criticize any American who whines about their situation in this land of endless opportunity, there are countless parts of the world where you can't just "get a pipe," metaphorically or physically. Or if you did manage, it might not be long until someone took it hostage.

Be thankful we live in a part of the world where the only true limit to relative success is your own ability.

 

[dougstove]

Be thankful we live in a part of the world where the only true limit to relative success is your own ability.

Even that is doubtful. Social mobility in North America is low.
There could be lots of scary reasons for that, and maybe it is fine that way, but objectively, people born poor stay poor. People born rich stay rich.
Teetering into ash can territory. I am not aiming to be offensive, but the Disney 1 in a million myth is a myth (or, at least, statistically rare).

I completely agree that most human misery is attributable to bad government, and that all successful countries have a foundation of decent (or at least competent) government.

 

[Ashful]

What you say is mostly correct, social mobility is low, but it is possible. We can all think of examples of very wealthy or powerful individuals born into very modest situations in this country. More difficult for those without a head-start, but you can always "get a pipe."

 

[jebatty]

More difficult for those without a head-start, but you can always "get a pipe."

But not everyone can "get a pipe," because if they did, there would be no one to paint the pipe, carry the pipe, clean the pipe, guard the pipe, maintain the pipe, repair the pipe, etc. The guy who owns the pipe and sells the water will take the loot, those under will take less, and less, and less, to the guy at the very bottom who only will get a drip to wet his tongue.

 

[Ashful]

But not everyone can "get a pipe," because if they did...

Correct. I was pretty careful with my words, though. "Anyone" can... not "everyone" can.

 

[jebatty]

Very good ... I would guess you are the guy who owns the pipe. Congratulations.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I make frequent trips to the philippines ,my wife is from there so we go to visit relatives. There are entrepreneurs everywhere and there are twice as many whining that they cant find someone to give them a job. Same situation in my home town,only a lot less entrepreneurs and more people whining no one will give them a good job.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Itsd also not how much you make but how you spend it. I see so many people both here and in the philippines buying things they absolutely do not need and should not buy. Example Cigarettes, lottery tickets, booze ,drugs ect ect. As amazed as i am to see people spending so much on this stuff here,it even more amazing to see it in a country where the average wage is $3-$5 day

 

[jebatty]

I also could not understand why people on very low incomes, into poverty, spend money on these things. But then we mentored a person recovering from various abuse issues, also in poverty, and began to understand that when a person does not believe they can get ahead, no matter what they do; that when a person is raised in a culture with those beliefs; then it makes no sense to the person to try to save because the valid bills are more than they make such that in many cases an existence barely can be eked out. So, might as well spend what you get as fast as you can on something you "enjoy" because no enjoyment is the other option.

This situation of desperation is compounded by powerful marketing by all the big companies with all the glitzy this or that and by all the food producers to buy this IMO bad food or that bad food, constant bombardment in TV, billboards, social marketing; and this marketing has created an intensely consumer society in the US. The result is a psyche that greatly desires and wants those things, a psyche that has been shaped since birth by big business to support their profits for execs and shareholders, and it becomes obvious why people with little buy things that make no sense to persons who understand that they have valid options.

And it is further compounded by govt and regulation that lets all this happen in the name of capitalism, free choice, profit, and ultimately greed. And that happens because big companies/big money have the lobbyists and power to control the system for their benefit. Big money supports big money.

It may sound like I'm saying the poor person is playing the victim here. Not playing at all. The poor person is at the mercy of a system, including a welfare system, that is designed not to let the poor person get ahead.

With all of that said, the person we intensely mentored, even invited to live in our home with a small child (invitation accepted), started to see hope; saw a lifestyle that didn't thrive on the latest this or that; saw that the person was valued by somebody; saw that the person actually was loved by caring people; and the result was setting the person free to finally succeed. This person so far has won the battles, but the war is not over. We remain highly involved in the person's life with constant support and encouragement. We are very hopeful the cycle of poverty has been broken for one person, one family.

Yes, anyone can succeed. And yes, everyone cannot succeed.

 

[Ashful]

Very good ... I would guess you are the guy who owns the pipe. Congratulations.

You assume too much! My story would surprise you, but that's not the subject for this thread.

BTW... good post (#70).

 

[Seasoned Oak]

From what iv seen both in the US and also in one of the poorest countries in the world, people with drive and ambition make it a lot farther no matter what the odds.
or no matter what country or political system they are born into. There are many success stories in my families and also quite a few who will never get anywhere,all living with the exact same families as the successful ones both here in america and in the Philippines. Yes people are a victim of circumstance sometimes but most often they create those circumstances with the choices they make every day. If you believe in luck, good choices good luck ,bad choices bad luck.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Living small is standard fare in the philippines. Id say Most houses are about 150 Sq ft to 300Sf

 

[jebatty]

Yes people are a victim of circumstance sometimes but most often they create those circumstances with the choices they make every day.

I agree with this on an objective basis. Everything a person does is the result of a choice, which of course puts total responsibility for a person's success/failure on the person. And I would agree even more if each person had the same support, opportunity, intelligence, skill-set, education, encouragement. But we know that is not true. Evidence is pretty clear that the first 4-5 years of a person's life have a huge impact on the outcome of that person, and evidence also is pretty clear that if a child by the end of the 4th grade is not a good reader and not doing well in school, that child's success outcome is likely to be seriously impaired. So while choice is objective, the ability to make that choice clearly is not.

Once again, there are plenty of stories of remarkable success by persons coming out of the worst situations, as well as failure by persons coming out of the best of circumstances. In both cases, however, there are several orders of magnitude of more stories of crime, abuse, failure, poverty, etc. by persons coming out of the negative situations and of stories of success by persons coming out of the positive situations. Those stories prove nothing for those populations as a whole.

We all can be sure that XYZ breakfast cereal company would not spend $millions on advertising to toddlers (and adults) touting their sugary cereals if that advertising did not work to change choices. Or that ABC tobacco company (in the past) or beer company would not spend $millions on advertising to young people and young and old adults touting the benefits of their products if that advertising did not work to change choices. Think of what the result would be if XYZ company spent all that money on advertising very healthy foods, or if ABC company spent all that money on to support young families and early childhood education, to change the way people think about healthy foods, good child care, and quality education.

We can argue whether or not choices create the circumstances or circumstances create the choices. Some of both are true, but on a population wide basis, I would submit that circumstances have the greatest impact in affecting choices.

 

[woodgeek]

As a liberal, I think there is a genuine dearth of opportunity for too many, and much of the human condition could be improved by appropriate (public) education. But that said, the majority of american adults are functionally innumerate. They can't really tell you what it means if a price is 25% off on sale, let alone compute compound interest, either negative (credit cards) or positive (mutual funds).

It is hard for me to understand the orientation of the innumerate to the world, but I suppose people just 'follow their gut' in decision making (rather than mentally applying the rule of 72).

And I don't think uninformed gut decisions in finance work.