[JohnDenver]

A thought experiment: if we really applied ourselves, how cheap could we make food and shelter?

I mean "food and shelter" in the most minimal sense. By food, I mean an adequate diet of bread, rice, corn or potatoes, with beans, occasional meat and fresh vegetables. By shelter, I mean a place to seek refuge from the elements where you can cook and sleep comfortably (with heat, blankets etc.)

Now, all we really need as human beings is food and shelter. We clearly have plenty of food and shelter in the U.S. We actually produce way more food and shelter than is necessary to serve the basic purpose, and on top of that, we produce a mountain of other crap which isn't really necessary.

The question is: how cheap could we make food and shelter if we focused our effort on them? Let's focus on food. Clearly we can drop the price by encouraging overproduction. We could easily do that by eliminating agricultural subsidies and tariffs on imports from poor nations.

But that's where we hit the barrier. We can't make food too cheap, because it will pinch the producers and they will stop producing. This is where capitalism fails; it actually inhibits production growth beyond a certain point. The capitalists who are producing food want it to be expensive, so they use all kinds of dirty tactics to limit production. They actually arrange with the government to pay people not to produce!

To make food cheap, we have to outwit the capitalists, so let's try this idea: non-profit agriculture. We start up agricultural concerns which are organized as ordinary non-profit organizations, rather than as corporations. Land for these non-profits will be purchased with the subsidy money which was previously paid to farmers for not working. In fact, since the elimination of subsidies will put a lot of farmers out of business, farms should be available at very low prices. So, the government gives the subsidies (which it previously paid to non-working farmers) to the non-profit farms who will now farm the land. The non-profits can keep functioning below the price corporations can because they don't need to charge for profit.

These measures should make food (as defined above) cheaper. This will drive the CPI down, and the government can accordingly reduce payouts for social security and food stamps etc. This reduces government expenditures, so the government is now free to reduce taxes on the non-profit farms, and encourage further overproduction and reduction in the food price.

Now, clearly we will hit a limit here, because the employees of non-profit farms are still being paid a living wage, just like the employees of any other non-profit. To make food even cheaper, we must reduce the labor costs of the non-profit farms. But this shouldn't be a problem because food prices are dropping. Employee wages can be reduced to reflect that.

We should be able to get food and shelter prices quite low using this approach -- so low, in fact, that people who are satisfied with food and shelter need to do very little work to "make a living". This would, in turn, have beneficial effects on energy prices (and the CPI), because it would eliminate a lot of the scurrying work people do to make a living. Slacking and loafing would be encouraged by public service announcements on TV.

The people on the farms, on the other hand, would be fairly busy, so it might make sense to call for volunteers, or draft young people for a year or two of compulsory public service. The remaining question is this: How hard would we have to work (relative to how hard we are working now) if all we did was produce food and shelter, nothing else? I'd imagine (like M. King Hubbert) that we would have to each work about 10 hours a week.

Note: This plan takes a totally laissez-faire approach to non-food/non-shelter part of the economy.

[rowante]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')lacking and loafing would be encouraged by public service announcements on TV.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rowante', 'J')ohnDenver, have you read Soros' 'Open Society'?

[bobaloo]

Non-profit farming operations? Hmmm, sounds like most of the farmers I know now.

The problem isn't the cost of food, it's the fact that no one eats basic foods any more. You're not paying for the food, you're paying for the processing and packaging.

A bushel of corn or wheat is selling for about the same as 20 years in price, not even adjusted for inflation. If a person eats low on the processing chain you can eat for next to nothing. One meal I eat is cracked wheat cereal. Half a cup of hard red wheat cracked and cooked for 15 minutes with salt and a little sugar. Total cost less than five cents. Delicious and nutritious. There's tons of food that can be had for pennies a serving, but when you go to a store what do you see? People buying $5 bags of Doritos and expensive bottled water.

Maybe we need to start with some basic education about food. Strange how all the home ec classes have been removed from schools these days. Teaching people how to eat and prepare basic whole foods could reduce the cost of food more than anything else.

[k_semler]

Live in a dumpster, under an overpass, in an abandoned biulding, at the airport, or in a tent in a park, for your shelter. There you go. Free rent, and no utilities. I would suggest staying at an airport first, then an abandoned biulding, and then in an abandoned biulding, then in a tent, then under an overpass, and then in a dumpster as far as comfort levels are concerned. As far as food, just eat out of the trash from the back of grocery stores, or do the old fashoned dine-n-dash.

[JohnDenver]

I think you're right. We're almost at free food already. So it seems that the main problem is shelter. What we need is to create a middle ground between abject homelessness and working your ass off for 30 years for a mortgage that gives you about 100 times more shelter than you really need. Something like Hoovervilles of comfortable electrified yurts, with proper shower and toilet facilities, where you pay off the cost of your home in six months.

[k_semler]

Live in a 8' truck camper located at a delapidated state camp ground. Free toilet facilities, and you have a place to call home when it is raining or really cold. I still think the airport would be a better option though, as it is much cleaner, and much more temperature regulated.

[johnmarkos]

You forgot clothing, which is a necessity unless you live in a rather free-thinking tropical paradise.

Education and some basic health care are near necessities.

The price of clothing is near zero because clothing has become a commodity. Producers compete to provide a high quality product for an extremely low price. It is similar with food, although nutritious food is more expensive than junk.

One problem with housing is the cliché, "Location, location, location." That is, it is difficult to make housing a commodity because some places are much more desirable than others. Those who created suburbia tried and, at least according to James Howard Kunstler, failed.

Your Hoovervilles of comfortable electrified yurts sound sort of like cheap suburbs. Perhaps we could consult with Kunstler on how to construct these communities as villages rather than as subdivisions.

[RiverRat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 'L')ive in a 8' truck camper located at a delapidated state camp ground.

[Ludi]

I love your plan, JD!

[gg3]

Land is a fixed resource, location is a fixed resource, there is not an actual free market in these things. Pretending that the market for land is truly a free market is what leads directly to all manner of unsustainable development as well as the obscenity of monster houses adjacent to festering homelessness.

And the old cliche about "if you don't like it, move," is absurd: it leads directly to the breakup of extended families and the end of generational continuity of neighborhoods. These are social evils on par with other externalized costs of economic activities, and as such they violate the core libertarian principle of transactions among willing participants (the child who grows up and discovers there is no way to afford living within a hundred miles of his/her family, is the victim of the externality).

I have been trying for a while to come up with a mechanism that does create something like a market system for freely buying and selling land and buildings, without the speculative downsides, but it seems almost impossible without some kind of government interference. Of the various forms of government interference, it would seem that a price limitation mechanism is the least intrusive, in the sense that it does not impose a tax and it does not tell you what you can and can't do inside your own house.

On the other hand, a fairly well-known quote from Native American philosophy says that buying & selling land is like buying & selling your own parents: what we would call, in western logic terms, a category-violation. So perhaps the way forward is to simply remove land from the category of things that can be owned, bought, and sold in any way. After all, we did it with respect to humans themselves when we outlawed slavery.

As for affordable houses as such, that part is easy. The key functions a house has to accommodate, are eating, sleeping, washing, and pooping. Socializing and entertainment are extras that, strictly speaking, can be carried out elsewhere.

Do a search under "micro houses." I've designed a couple of these myself, it's not hard. The absolute minimum unit is about 160 square feet of footprint on the land: with a basement, main floor, and attic loft. Also designed one that's about 300 square feet of footprint, with similar arrangements, and a bit more comfortable. The target cost for materials for the first one was about $8,000. The second one would probably be about $12k.

Another possibility is to go out to about 400 - 500 square feet on a single floor, which is more useful as people get older and can't deal with climbing stairs (or falling down stairs, which can be potentially fatal in the later years).

As with any other house, a microhouse can be built with one's choice of materials, e.g. masonry, timber-frame, strawbale, or whatever.

[JohnDenver]

How about small lots (like 500 square feet each) developed with microhousing? Develop and sell them through normal channels. Just make them extremely affordable. Or how about flop houses or capsule hotels downtown, where commuters can stay on weeknights to save gas costs? Local restaurants can serve them dinner.

[johnmarkos]

There's a homeless advocate in my city who for years has been advocating tiny houses as a solution for the local housing crisis.

[frankthetank]

Its funny how these people will build these 5000sq ft homes and then spend all their time in the car on the way to work/or at work trying to pay for the house.

I could live in my 8x12 bedroom if it had a bathroom and a shower along with a small sink/refrigertor.

Another idea would be to build a small home on one of those car trailers (tandem axle), therefore you would (atleast in my state) be exempt from having it taxed (anything on wheels/skids)..a little cold in the winter, but just put haybales around it or something to that effect.

[rowante]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rowante', 'J')ohnDenver, have you read Soros' 'Open Society'?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'N')o. What's it about?

[baloghblog]

Does anyone else see a solution in shared housing? Many of the existing homes and certainly the new homes being built are large enough to be shared with a couple of families. Those with tight bonds in the community may have better luck than those isolated.

I think that this is an especially good idea for the oldest among us and the newer families with small children. The elderly or infirmed could share the cost of medical expenses and in-home care/support. Young families could help each other out with child care, and need less income to support more bodies.

In all cases rising home heating and utility bills would be made more affordable by splitting the cost.

[savethehumans]

There are a few houses in our historical district that were built in the 1800s (pre-A/C). Sure, they've been upgraded (A/C is in 'em NOW), but the basic structure is the same. Lots of windows, wide patios circling around the house, roofs that actually DRAINED OFF falling rainwather (what a concept!), etc. They are big places. So, yeah, many people could live in 'em. Fair-sized yards for home gardens, too! You know, back to the future! Short walk to the city square (lots of which was build pre-A/C, too). Nice set-up. . .if you can get those danged sheeple to agree to cooperate! Ah, the Big IF!

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('savethehumans', ' ')Nice set-up. . .if you can get those danged sheeple to agree to cooperate! Ah, the Big IF!

[I_Like_Plants]

Isn't Soros a Robber Baron of the old type? He's known for trading currencies, and literally bankrupting countries and walking off with the profits, such as in the Asian monetary crisis. I'd be very leery of anything he advocates. As a parallel, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has an idea for a society that a lot of people get into and appear to like, but it does not seem to actually help them, and seems to enrich Mr Moon an awful lot.....

[johnmarkos]

As part of my exploration of sustainability ideas, I'm contemplating what the minimal requirements for human shelter might be. When I'm camping, I don't need a house. I just need a sleeping bag and a tent. However, if you were sleeping in an urban environment and needed protection from other people as well as from the elements, you would need a solid shelter that could be closed off from the outside. If you were family, you would want to be able to link the shelters together.

For sustainability reasons, the shelter should be as small and inexpensive as possible (least footprint). Perhaps it should also be portable.

What is the smallest, simplest possible (adequate) shelter? What needs must a human shelter meet to be considered adequate? What additional features must it have to provide some minimal comfort?