[Erin] The Benedict Option and the job factor

This is a good thing for those of us not dependent upon daily transportation to work. We can have the joys of living far from the city without being bothered by the folks who still work in it.

But realistically, the number of voters in the far suburbs is now large enough that there is going to be a political solution that will fit their lifestyles, because politicians want to be re-elected and they have two years from next November to figure it out.

It seems that the reality of the Benedict Option is that people who are unable to do manual labor or care for children don't really have a place in the community. Just as we ask women with advanced degrees to stay home and raise children, so to do we ask men with advanced degrees to step away from the computers and pick up a hammer and a plow.

The insistence on maintaining one's career that isn't focused on assisting the community seems selfish and anti-communitarian. For self-sustaining communities to survive, you can't having just a few people doing the work of the community while others go off to work on their computers all day or off an office.

"Make macrame lawn furniture and sell it over the internet."

Nice idea, John E. :)

But alas, it's already being done:

http://www.carolsrugs.com/macrame_lawn_chair_patterns.htm

Telecommuting, telework, calling it in, whatever name you use, that should be the wave of the future. Then folks can live on their farms, in the village, or whereever and still have a corporate job. Of course, the Benedict Option types should also seriously think about what type of employment they are involved in. Should a 'bene' be working for The Man to begin with?

All we have to do is to encourage the shift in IT to the materialist Europeans and Asians so that they maintain the Internet for us, and then we can just order the things we need online from them and live the sort of lives we ought to be living around our own community universities where we can make sure our kids are learning the important things in life.

As you say, Ave Maria Town is probably worth a post by itself. Check out December's Conde Nast Portfolio for a sad story on how that dream is ignominiously dying: http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/goods/real-estate/2007/11/19/Tom-Monaghan-Ave-Maria-Development

There is a developer in my county (Snohomish) that is selling "condo farms" similar to what is described in MZ Forrest's post. The developer has subdivided the property into one acre plots. Each plot may have one building on it, not for residential use, such as a chicken coop, barn or tool shed. The idea is that they can be starter farms or hobby farms for those who live in the city or nearby suburbs. He calls them condo farms because of the legal arrangement of shared space (roads, fencing?) being maintained by the owner's association.

While at first I thought this was a weird idea--who would want to own and farm land you can't also live on?--I realized that this is exactly how traditional villages in almost every culture are organized. You live in town and walk out to the fields to work your plot. I think this is an idea with legs.

Regarding the original post, I've seen discussion of this on Kunstler's blog and a peak oil forum: rising gas prices mean those who commute long distances will want to move closer in to the city. But in the long run, should resources become *really* scarce, then the best thing is to have land in the country with as much self-sufficiency as possible--or a community that is self-sufficient (such as the Benedict option). Managing that transition will be tricky.

A typical peak oiler prediction: Just as you've bought your overpriced suburban house, gas goes up, your house loses value and you can't sell it. Finally you sell it at a loss, move to the city to an incredibly expensive condo, maybe even sell your car and then spend all your money on increasingly expensive food. Worst case peak-oil scenario, fuel costs go up to the stratosphere, the trucks stop delivering goods to your favorite shops, the economy goes into a depression, losing your city job and cities begin to empty as people move back to the land for survival. You are then stuck with trying to sell your condo in a city no one wants to live in and move back to the surburb you came from or even further out.

We live in the suburbs and my husband commutes an hour each way daily. I can imagine a time when the gas gets so expensive that he has to stay in town during the week and just come home for the weekends. With four children, an adequately sized condo would be hard to afford. Living in something we could afford, say, a one-bedroom condo in town living minimalistically, would actually be illegal.

We live in interesting times.

But back to the point: how can a crunchy community solve the employment problem? Is it necessary to locate within a reasonable driving distance of a large city to provide access to jobs?

I started to read this post and comment thread with interest, and am left shaking my head. It's all wrong.

The problem is simple and obvious: consumption. That's it. This is how the Amish have prospered (declaring greed a community sin, outlawing consumption beyond the core needs, and then working every day). Once consumption has been reduced, the Benedict Option is quite easy, anywhere it is tried, in a city or the countryside, low IQ or high IQ, low tech or high tech, as a single or extended family or as a community.

Everyone is blind to the consumption factor because we just happen to be, ahem, the wealthiest people in the history of humanity (gulp). We make the "rich" man of Gospel fame look piker poor. Therefore, we will always find any form of community elusive (even a single family) if only because God is truly just. It's certainly not like Jesus didn't warn us over and over about the dangers of wealth. We reap what we sow. Right now, we sow dollars, not community...and we will harvest accordingly.

mdavid, I'd agree that consumption is the problem.

But how do we fix that?

Are you self-sufficient now? Could you be?

"There is no way we are going to live in a country safe from invasion if we're hand-weaving baskets and lawn furniture,..."

I agree stefanie we're in the Red Queen's race and that's just the reality of the situation.

Jillian, that's an excellent post. The only quibble I would have is that people could sprawl if they wanted, they just must accept a lower standard of living. Anyone wanting to build wealth as we've come to expect must indeed live in cities, though.

Erin Manning, I'd agree that consumption is the problem. But how do we fix that? Are you self-sufficient now? Could you be?

Fix consumption? Easy. Stop consuming. Buy food in bulk and cook from scratch. Live where you work and dump the car. Vacation where you live. Small house. Read, play music and socialize for entertainment. Live healthy. Avoid doctors.

But why does one need to be "self-sufficient" to pull a Benedict? America is quite friendly to people who run a business as long as the product is good. Most of the poor work quality in America comes from family breakdown and excess liberalism. Plus, in a knowledge economy, brains are in very short supply - just ask any employer. The hard worker is in the driver's seat, he just can't force it on people, and must commit long term to an area and serve others, producing real wealth for other people.

But I do think it critical to be "self-sufficent" for many so-called staples of modern society when pulling a Benedict. Labor is difficult to afford if you have exited the rat race and thus earn lower wages yourself, so it pays one to fix their own car, repair their own house, cut their own hair, cook their own food, etc. and save the limited money for hard goods that are bought only once.

I've found that once consumption is cut to the point one can save enough money to make a job optional, a lot of stuff falls into place. One can demand whatever work schedule they want from their employer and get it as long as they provide more value than they get in wages. It's tough out there to find good help. Most workers tend to be generally greedy and lazy both. It's the culture. So I see no reason why workers can't live out the Benedict and still work and buy and sell with others - even the Amish often do.

I don't see self-sufficiency as much of an option, unless you're basically setting up as a farmer, which is a different issue. However, there are lots of ways to make life much simpler, so you can work part-time. That Red Queen stuff is nonsense. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. Make sure you have no rent or mortgage. I saved up to buy a medium-sized house in a middle-class area, but it's also possible to buy a cheap house. If you homeschool, the area doesn't matter much. Property is also much cheaper the USA than the UK.

2. Get skills that either (i) can be used for freelance teleworking (my option), or (ii) are in demand even in rural places - plumber, electrician, mechanic, builder, schoolteacher, doctor, dentist.

3. Get DIY skills for your house, etc.

4. Produce some of your own food.

5. Location - I can't decide what is best, and the situation is probably different in the USA from the UK. Some option are these:
(i) My option - a smallish town, not far from cities, and with markets, a supermarket, rail links, etc. - Cheap shopping, good local food, no need for a car, but expensive property and a lot of pretentious people
(ii) A remote place - Cheap land, quiet, but a lot of money goes on the car and gasoline
(iii) An ex-industrial place, like an old mining village: Often REALLY cheap land and property, lots of opportunities for scavenging building materials, etc., but also a lot of social problems.

I earn good money, but it's really for luxuries, like foreign holidays and a materialistic wife - I know that we could get by even if I lost my job.

Mdavid, thank you for sharing these details--I know my husband will find them as interesting as I do.

Our differences probably come in these major categories:

1. Housing. This area is the only part of the country I've ever lived where smaller, older homes were MORE expensive than new ones. Our only way to buy a house was with the VA loan program, too, which restricted our choices. We have about 300 sf more than you do, but we do have a mortgage. Could we have "saved up" by renting? Anything we could rent with children would cost us as much as our monthly payment, here, if not more. But we do have to pay homeowners' insurance, with a mortgage.

2. Property taxes: our house cost WELL under 120K and our property tax bill is over $3,000/year and rising. We have no state income tax, but my husband works in an industry that collects an "extra" social security tax which pretty much erases our "savings" from not paying state income tax.

3. We pay our own education costs to homeschool--not as much as other forms of education, but not paid for by the state or any other entity. We buy our own computers/DSL, but had only one computer until very recently. We also put ourselves through college, even in my case taking semesters off to work several times, but my husband's military service occurred at a time when the GI provisions had been pretty well gutted, and I incurred debt despite scholarships and grants (these didn't cover my room and board, textbooks, and related expenses). Though those debts have been paid off--we made that a priority--there's no denying that having those amounts affected our ability to save initially.

4. Our areas of miscellaneous expenditure do differ. Much of that is due directly or indirectly to my husband's job. But this is the area of greatest flexibility, where expenses could be cut in a moment if they had to be. We probably need to work on this area the most--but the reality is that when compared to $300/month in property taxes alone, this "optional" expenditure area doesn't ever seem to amount to all that much.

I'm going to be pondering your way of doing things--but the biggest difference for us is going to be housing as long as we live here. There's almost no way to do it significantly cheaper, especially as long as my husband works where he does--a longer commute would just mean that any small gains we could make by reducing our housing costs would be erased by the increase in fuel costs. But right now, our annual housing costs alone are greater than your total yearly expenses.

Thanks for that info, Erin. I'm really surprised at the high property tax in DFW. Is all TX like this?

M.Z., I don't see what income has to do with spending. Granted, one can't live "anywhere" but there are plenty of poorer urban areas where one can get $10,000 of yearly mortgage expense (this makes $24k/yr, what is that, $12/hr?). Consumption, not income, is the key.

MDavid,

With no state income tax, yes, property taxes are high in Texas. Though there is no statewide property tax, we pay taxes on the city (if you live in a city), county, school district (this is the most expensive), and other districts, such as hospital, emergency services, or water.

For example, find an owner-occupied house valued at $100,000 (for convenience) in my city, county, etc. The taxes are thus:

1. City: $640.40
2. School: $1,065.31
3. County: $186.26
4. Community College: $64.32
5. Hospital: $203.20
6. Total: $2159.49

The overall tax rate for that example is 2.15949%. Of course, this doesn't scale perfectly, as there are homestead exemptions (which are included in the example) of varying amounts, either a fixed amount or a percentage. Yes, I'm in D/FW. It's not quite as bad out in the country, where there is no city tax, but school taxes are bad throughout the state (from my understanding). In the country, you are also more likely to have emergency services (fire/ambulance) districts, along with water districts. Hospitals are likely to be cheaper, as they aren't under the crushing pressure that Parkland is under. We also have one of the higher sales taxes in the country, at 6.25% for the state, with the county, city, and mass transit able to add up to an additional 2% for a total of 8.25%.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if Texas started funding everything from the state level with a uniform sales tax--but ONLY a sales tax.

You might want to have fewer children.

For some reason my formula was truncated, it should read
({Hourly x 2}+N=Yearly) (N=1:0[less than]Yearly[less than or equal]$26K, N=2:$26K[less than]Yearly[less than or equal]$52K, so on and so forth for N=3,4,5,6,7,8....

Sorry about that.

The current issue of Consumer Reports has an article entitled Cut Your Spending By $500 per month. Not all of the admonitions are going to apply to or can be implemented by everyone, but I see a couple of suggestions that I have already used and some that I can use in the future, a year or so, from now.