Would like to see my fellow freedom fighters keep their heads above water and get out of the cities. Thatâd be a good start. Some keys for self-reliance are in this article. Most people donât need a big house and youâd be surprised at what you can do on just a few acres. Let the system crash. Let the lights go out. Providing for yourself and family can be fulfilling on a good day. Get back to nature and fuck the technophiles.
Unless of course youâre a âtechnophileâ/monkey- wrench-in-the-cogs- of-the-system. Hatâs off to you if you are.
Good Magazines: Mother Earth News
Countyside
Grit
Self-Reliance
Backwoods Home
Samm
When 43% of Americans Canât Pay for Food and Rent, Economic Collapse is Here
If that were true and the study cited is true then the economy collapsed two years ago and nobody seemed to notice.
The press release for this study (the full study has not yet been released) states âThe Project compares 2016 household costs versus incomes.â These studies take time to do. I understand that. The fact that this isnât âup-to-the-secondâ data is not my point as such data is clearly impossible to gather, much less analyze.
My point is, how did these 43% of Americans manage to survive for the last two years? Did I miss the news reports about 140 million Americans starving to death? Or about more than 100 million Americans suddenly becoming homeless? Because If I didnât then regardless of the accuracy of the ALICE numbers, their situations clearly arenât as dire as the quoted stat suggests.
Sounds like bullshit to me. 43% when unemployment is below 10%?
In 2016 the unemployment rate ranged from 4.6% to 5%. But, to be fair, the whole point of the ALICE study is that it reflects the so-called underemployed, not the unemployed.
Still doesnât address that âBetween 2007 and 2017, homelessness decreased overall and across every major category of homelessness nationally. Overall homelessness decreased 14.4 percent.â
I think the bad part is that the system has the majority of people in this land dependent on it. Most donât even realize it.
So theyâve genetically modified animals such as pigs to be âOKâ with shitty feed, cramped living conditions, and to behave in mellow ways so theyâre led to slaughter easier. In other words the commercial pigs are OK with their poor lives because the âgood lifeâ that a non-fucked-with pig would enjoy is being erased from the natural desires and emotions of said pig. (thank goodness for science and technology)
I donât think that realizing how good or how bad we have it âeconomicallyâ is that important.
I think we should realize what technology is erasing from our brains that we really need to thrive and be happier.
Samm
Correct. Itâs click bait. Humans canât survive more than 30 days without food and more than 3 days without water. Gandhiâs longest fast was 21 days.
Wow surprised to see Jay post it. Heâs usually the one to call BS.
I never claimed it was an extremely logical factual article, but it was mostly interesting despite some deficiencies.
About 11 days without sleep.
But it does seem like there are a lot of people just getting by. Itâs not that they donât have any money, but they donât have âextraâ money. And when they do have extra, they spend it.
The advice at the end of the article is pretty good.
But itâs not just click-bait in the traditional âmediaâ sense. Having looked over their previous study (when it was 37% of households) Iâm sure the new study supports the hyperbole. According to their numbers, 43% of American households canât pay for both food and rent.
The immediate problem is that theyâre simply looking at aggregate numbers - households âneedâ $x according to community expense averages, while community average incomes are $x-$y. Theyâre focusing on the statistics and ignoring the real world data of the individuals represented by the data. The very definition of an âivory towerâ.
The bigger problem, however, is that studies like these are used to create âpublic policyâ and reinforce the desire for government. Afterall, if 43% of America is starving thatâs clearly too large a problem for individuals to solve on their own.
What those who support freedom need is for the focus to shift from the collective (43% of American households) to the individual (the struggling family down the street). Individuals and small communities are fully equipped to help a struggling family through voluntary means. And, it is only through a series of these smaller actions that the larger issue can be resolved.
Your first sentence is a result of the human nature presented in the last sentence.
I donât think it is the result of human nature. It is the result of marketing. A lot of people donât have the will power to resist.
Is there a historical example of a society that lived in surplus without consistently seeking more resources?
I donât know. Society is the problem.
Now people even want virtual resources.
Does anybody here want to get out of the technological shit show cities and get closer to nature ?
Or are you all destined to add to the floridian Q tip collection?
Samm
The fact that humans have, apparently, always felt they didnât have âenoughâ is the evidence that itâs a human âproblemâ and not a result of marketing, society or technology.
By blaming outside forces for our problems we place the responsibility for a solution on outside forces as well. Only by accepting that the problems are our own individual responsibility can we find true solutions, as those solutions reside solely within our individual selves as well.
That is not an apparent fact. You talk about humans like they arenât individuals.
All humans donât have the âproblemâ you attribute to all of humanity.
That doesnât follow.
Recognizing the source of a problem does not assign responsibility for a solution.
Iâm sorry you got that impression, as my belief is quite the opposite. Allow me to recap-
You said: âBut it does seem like there are a lot of people just getting by. Itâs not that they donât have any money, but they donât have âextraâ money. And when they do have extra, they spend it.â
I blamed the problem that you correctly stated âa lot of peopleâ have with money on human nature while you blamed it on marketing and then society. Which is why I asked for an example of a group of people, aka a society, that did not exhibit this problem on a wide scale. Hoping for an example that predated âmarketingâ in order to support your claim. No examples were forthcoming.
Hence, logic tells me that this is a long-standing situation, thus a part of human nature, or âthe distinguishing characteristicsâincluding ways of thinking, feeling, and actingâwhich humans tend to have naturally.â Just because something is human nature does not mean it applies to âall of humanityâ or exists in every individual, just that it tends to naturally occur.
It does not do so on its own, no. But the vast majority of people do tend to place responsibility for solutions on the creator of the problem.
Regardless of the poorly qualified wording in that first sentence, the second sentence is the most important one for both personal and societal growth: âOnly by accepting that the problems are our own individual responsibility can we find true solutions, as those solutions reside solely within our individual selves as well.â
I think FATTIES are a result of the problem.
Have you seen the ones at the ice cream stands? Or at the donut shops ?
Look at some history books with actual photos from when cameras first came out. More producers. More Independence. Less of technologically âadvancedâ society. Now, way too many fatties.
Hope the ice cream stands have a surplus. 
Samm