> But it is extremely important to point out that the American "rat race" cities 100% subsidize areas like this.
It's even more important to point out that places like this grow the food and do the manufacturing that those "cities" you like would collapse without.
Which implies the public roads have a positive economic value - the earlier post did refer to the area not to the people like the author of the blog post
The author is ostensibly part of the community that supports the people growing food. Not many people want to live around absolutely no one. Farmers want someone to staff the local convenience store,
the local school, the local pharmacy, fire department, etc…
Farms need rural infrastructure which is what the anti rural subsidy people don’t seem to understand.
Rural subsidy for agriculture and other purposes makes a ton of sense. And not all rural areas are subsidy areas, many involved in energy and mineral extraction are economic surplus contributors. I have no problem with rural subsidy.
I think part of my objection to this lifestyle is that the author is essentially a burden on their community by their own choice. The community would be healthier economically if this person wasn’t in it.
Now, all of us may eventually become a burden as we age or if we become disabled. But doing it by choice is a different thing philosophically.
It’s bad for the person doing it in that they are going to depend on external factors keeping that lifestyle staying stable. If the library closes [1] or rural public transportation gets cut [2] this author now has to change up their life a whole lot to compensate.
If you’re already a person who generates an economic surplus you can roll with those punches more easily.
It’s bad for the community because this person is consuming more resources than they produce. Everyone in the community is slightly poorer because their tax dollars are supporting an able-bodied person who essentially refuses to work.
People don’t like to admit that they live in a metaphorical anthill. The ants who aren’t working and haven’t saved for retirement are factually a burden. I’m not saying we should all be wage slaves and we must work or else we have no value, but I think the author is essentially describing an undesirable extreme.
Excluding the possible exception of healthcare I’m not sure what you mean.
The hypothetical person is paying property taxes on the house they own. He’s paying income tax on his income. He’s paying sales tax on the food and necessities he buys.
I live in state with no income tax. If I decide to live in a cheap house, eat cheaply, and save most of my income does that mean I’m a burden on my community because I’m not paying enough property tax and sales tax?
In addition to the taxes he’s paying, he’s taking a previously blighted property, fixing it up, and maintaining it. He’s providing a service to the owner of the gas station by working there a few days a month. He’s presumably purchasing things from local stores instead of driving outside the community to shop. Maybe he’s even volunteering or providing other help to people in the community.
All in exchange for a few library books and some bus trips. I think most communities would love to have him.
While they are paying all required taxes, and he’s maybe even doing positive things as you describe, the “community” (federal, state, and local levels) is investing more money into him than he is returning to the system.
That in itself is a simple fact that you can verify with basic publicly available government budget/taxation statistics numbers.
It only really works out okay because not everyone is doing what the author does. If everyone did what the author does we would have to drastically change how we organize our society.
A shorter way to say it is that the people who build the roads, fill potholes, and pick up garbage tend to work a full time job. If they all decided to only work one or two days a month (current unemployment rate: 4%) we’d have an instant crisis.
And maybe that realignment is okay and we could do that, but that’s not how it’s set up now.
>That in itself is a simple fact that you can verify with basic publicly available government budget/taxation statistics numbers.
There's a few problems here. Yes if you take total government expenditures per capita, he's not paying that much in taxes directly. But most of those costs are fixed. If a new person pops up in the US, it doesn't actually cost the federal government an extra $20k a year.
Over a century ago we decided that the more money you make the greater proportion of our total fixed costs you have to pay. There are various justifications for this, the more wealth you have the more you benefit from those government services, diminishing marginal unity of money etc...
But the point is if you're just going to look at total per capita expenditures, looking just at the federal level for simplicity, you need to make around $100k a year before your federal taxes exceed that.
By your argument anyone not making $100k a year is consuming more public money than they are returning and are thus a burden on society.
Your premise logically leads to that absurd conclusion. Obviously the rest of society is necessary in order for the people who do make $100k a year to exist. By your logic someone who lives on $5k a year but who writes open source software for free that some company uses to make $100 million dollar a year is a burden on society.
Someone who creates art that inspires millions of people, or someone who makes articles, games, or videos that provide millions of hours of entertainment, is a burden on society if they give away their work instead of sell it.
My mom was a burden on society because she raised children instead of working outside the home--even though she now has 3 adult children paying hundreds of thousands in taxes per year.
>It only really works out okay because not everyone is doing what the author does.
That's true of nearly every lifestyle you could recommend. Or hell even every piece of good financial advice.
Having 6 months of savings is almost universally considered sound financial advice. But if right now every consumer in America cut all of their discretionary spending to build up a 6 month cushion, it would completely destroy the economy.
That doesn't mean that it's not a valid recommendation for a financial advisor to make.
The author isn't recommending that everyone in America live this way, he's saying that if you can learn to live without all the things you think you need, this is an alternative. If you are the type of person who can't stand the idea of working a 9-5 for 40 years, this is something you can do.
Most people will never do this, but just the fact that it's available as a relief valve is I pretty amazing I think.
> The community would be healthier economically if this person wasn’t in it.
Not everything is about money. A healthy rural society has a variety of people in it, some bring in more money that others, but the mix is necessary. Otherwise people will leave.
This guy for example seems to be able to write, and has lots of spare time. Perhaps he helps his neighbors. There's no money involved, but the entire community is better off.
Let’s say you’re in a collectivist community. No money is involved. Everyone contributes to the community by providing both needs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc) and wants (culture, arts, beautification, etc).
Would the person who chooses to contribute to community duties 1/10th the time and effort of the amount the rest of the community puts in face social consequences?
I think in most tightly-knit communities of this sort, they would. Money is just the exchange mechanism we use to enable more complex exchanges.
It's even more important to point out that places like this grow the food and do the manufacturing that those "cities" you like would collapse without.