One thing I really got out of the History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan is if anyone tells you there was ONE cause of the fall of Rome, they're full of crap.
Heck, non-working pets (e.g. herd guardians, vermin control, etc.) were nearly unknown until relatively recently, because who had the wealth to feed a non-productive mouth?
It might be more the opposite, that only in relatively recent times have people been able to get away for a day or two without doing what we would call "camping." If you were a hunter-gatherer you'd grab a buddy (or not), invent some excuse like checking for game in the next valley, and rough it for a night or two. Now if you fuck off for a weekend you can check into a hotel or an AirBNB.
Gas $100
Beer $50
Cigs $15
Ontario Park Campsite $59/night x 2 = $120
Firewood 2 x $15 = $30
Some basic sausages and food = $50
Total $375
Min Wage $15/hour. Hours of work = 25 hours
Actually it would take more than 25 hours, because most likely that person does not live with Grandma and has shelter / food expenses. So might need to save up for a month, if not months.
So although our minimum wages are absolutely atrocious by your standards (officially it's around $100 per month IIRC, but I haven't heard of anybody making below $200), half of this list doesn't apply, and the other half is cheaper by 5-20 times (a pack of cigs is ~$1 if I'm not mistaken, a liter of gasoline around 50 cents, etc). Considering all of this, we've been chugging along just fine… or not, actually. Braces yourselves, I guess.
I'm in North America and the list still feels very weird.
Going camping at a premium campsite alone (e.g. not splitting the bill with friends) only to consume $50 of beer and $15 of cigarettes is kind of a hilarious definition of camping.
FWIW, there are places where open camping is allowed in the Canada and the United States. The OP was using a specific car-camping site with reserved spots and amenities nearby.
There might be places where you can openly camp in Canada and United States. I lived in BC and those where possible to find. In Ontario not anywhere near cities were people live.
i have been to places where hotels are cheaper than that.
State park "primitive" campsite here is $15 max. That's still in the official campground area. If you hike into a state or national forest, it's free.
- Cigarettes and beer are a necessary part of camping?
- Not going far from home, but using ~23 liters of gas($50 @ 210/L) just to get there?
- Staying at the most expensive camp site(AA fee schedule) in Ontario?
- Paying for firewood instead of just collecting it?
- Spending $25/person/day on food?
> - Not going far from home, but using ~23 liters of gas($50 @ 210/L) just to get there?
Absolutely could see this. I live in the US, but the nearest spot I'd like to go camping is probably a $50 round trip. And I'd like to camp in different places, so we're starting to look at $50 being entirely reasonable if I made a list of places I'd like to camp. Not every trip, but certainly within the realm of possibility.
> - Paying for firewood instead of just collecting it?
For what it's worth, this is not allowed in many parks.
> - Spending $25/person/day on food?
This doesn't sound insane in the context of a trip, even a camping trip. You'll probably buy some special meat to grill, marshmallows to roast, some trail mix and maybe stop for food on the way out or back. $25 isn't really that crazy when you're traveling.
> For what it's worth, this is not allowed in many parks.
Sure, but you don't need to camp in parks. That helps save on the $60/night fee as well.
> You'll probably buy some special meat to grill, marshmallows to roast, some trail mix and maybe stop for food on the way out or back.
According to OP it is just a "basic sausage", not even a special meat. I end up spending about $15/day on food and I just pack what I want with no thought to cost.
I guess my point is...none of what OP described is completely unreasonable for a random person's camping trip. But it is completely unreasonable when using this camping trip as an example as to how a person making minimum wage can't even go camping without saving up for weeks.
To me, this post reminds me exactly of things you see on reddit's antiwork sub, where people say something like "You can't live on minimum wage", and to prove it provide a breakdown of how much it would cost to rent a 2BR apartment downtown, $500/month clothing allowance, $400/mo car lease, things like that. Stuff that I don't even do for myself despite making closer to 7 figures than 5. I've never camped at a AA fee schedule spot, never spent $25/day on food(while camping), never drank $25 of beer per day(while camping), never bought cigarettes, etc...
A bigger problem with the itemization of cigarettes is that listing them as a camping expense implies that you smoke more while camping than you would otherwise, which makes no sense.
That means camping is cheaper than the alternative. It's insane to list saving money as if it were a cost of camping.
(Prices quoted from https://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/visit/general_park_info/fees...).
Fee Level - AA Base Fee HST Total
Electrical Regular $52.50 $6.83 $59.33
Also, I remember being charged a convenience fee for booking online on top of everything.
Even at these prices I still think a provincial park is the best value for what you get. The park will be your entertainment for a full day, as it most likely has access to water for swimming, or places to hike. Unlike a cheaper private campsite.
Also, I personally had a really crappy experience staying at a private campsite before in Northern Ontario. Got yelled at for starting a fire after 11 pm, and subsequently followed around, including when I went to the bathroom. The campsite was run by mennonites, but it felt like I was on some cult's compound. Cameras everywhere and people walking behind you with walkie talkies. And it wasn't even that much cheaper and had to pay for showers.
I listed beer and cigarettes, because its a common vice of lower class working people. Less so than it used to be. But $15 dollars is just for one pack. So the guy is rationing his cigarettes if that makes you feel better.
Also just tanked up, and it was $130. So a $50 would be less than half a tank of gas in my car. It's about a 2 or 3 hour drive one way, if you live in Toronto and go camping up north and/or get stuck in traffic.
Most of Ontario, at least the populated parts, do not have free camping anywhere near, and other places have no trespassing laws. Cheaper campsites do exist, but really not by that much. $35 is pretty common, at least it was a few years ago. But do you really want to be stuck by the highway listening to cars going by in your budget campsite. I thought Provisional parks were built for the citizens to enjoy nature. And if you're going to save up for camping trip for so long, I hope you at least go to a good place.
You can't collect firewood anywhere you paid for camping. That has been my experience. I definitely would not try collecting firewood in a provincial park. I've read about someone that collected mushrooms in a local park, and they were fined over 5k. You're also not allowed to bring wood with you.
Also, I just came back from the grocery store. A bag of cherries, which are in season, btw, were $15/kg. Low quality pork sausages (full of fat) are over $10. Salmon or any fresh fish fillet $25+. Real food, or even "processed corn" food prices are sky rocketing in Canada. If it was me going camping, $50 that would even be that much for Friday Evening, Saturday, and Sunday morning.
So having a disposable income at all is a luxury, even if it's 10% of your income. Assuming that 10% figure, you can multiply those 3 days by 1/10% = 10 and you get 30 days of working for one weekend of camping. Not really great.
$1.50 on food per meal.
$1 on camping gas or coal for the weekend.
$200 of gear, but it will last me 20+ camping weekends.
$0 on travel, because I'll be hiking.
Now if I were to live in Edmonton again, I could probably still camp as if it were free but I appreciate your assessment that a minimum wage worked could not. Because I certainly could as a minimum wage worker back in the day. And I probably would never justify a domestic hotel type weekend or week long trip within Canada.
Manille (Manila? Capital of Philippines) has 43079 inhabitants per square kilometer (23sqm per person, including agriculture), China tries to do the same.
The key is nature doesn’t owe you democracy, and governments neither. We can store many people vertically if we remove their personality. What I mean is poverty doesn’t make the system itself collapse, it can actually survive pretty far, even thrive while everyone is expunged.
After all, USSR only collapsed in 1991, 69 years after Stalin took power, after killing probably 1/4 of its population in gulags.
[1] Just for fun, I checked densities. Tokyo 23 wards (the actual city of Tokyo): 14,500/km^2. Downtown Vancouver: 17,000/km^2. Downtown Edmonton: 5,000/km^2
We have been getting fucked for a while now.
No its not actually. If anything the Soviet system collapsed because the elites didn't really like it that much. The elites had lost interest in preserving the system. Elites didn't like the party discipline.
There is a reason why Soviet collapsed and China didn't. Just having demonstrations and unhappy population does magically lead to successful overthrows of governments.
The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes.
I don't think Chinese government would survive another Tiananmen square incident.
Yes and as many historical topics, it a romantic tail that people like to tell rather then a great analysis of the truth.
> The communist governments were put in a position where there were going to have to massacre their own people openly revolting in massive strikes.
That's what many governments in history did. And that's exactly the point, the reason a state fails is when the elites have not enough reason to defend the current system. When they do, then the army shows up. And in Hungary in 1956 they were willing for example.
We can add to that, after the failed hardliner coup, the country was run by gangsters who didn't even care to pretend they were anything else.
And before someone starts saying that the Roman Empire lived "through" the Byzantine Empire all the way to 1453 I have to say that from my point of view that is only valid until the late 6th-early 7th century, by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign the Byzantine Empire was a thing totally different compared to the Roman Empire.
Combine that with the rise of a new powerful enemy and you have a disaster on your hands.
New evidence suggest that the Theme system was only barley function for a long time before the decline. In fact, going away from that system is partly why they were so powerful by the year 1000.
> by the end of Heraclius's [1] reign
I don't agree with that at all. If there is any reasonable point to talk about non-continuation it would be 1204.
I stand by my opinion regarding the Heraclius era. I would have said Justinian, but one can still see traces of the Roman heritage here and there during his reign, but after Danube limes fell in the late 500s it wasn't the "hellenised" Romans battling the Slavs and Avars, but the Byzantines (yes, I know they were calling themselves the Rhōmaîoi).
Back to Heraclius's reign, once the Arabs came on the scene things were totally, totally different. I know people now like to diss on Pirenne for his Mohammed and Charlemagne and for how he insisted on the disruption, in fact the total destruction, of most of Mediterranean trade caused by their advent on the historical scene, but he was, in essence, right, especially when it comes to the "Western" Mediterranean (not sure how I would exactly define "Western" Mediterranean for that period, hence the quotes). Things were never the same after that. Also, the Byzantine Iconoclasm phenomenon wouldn't have happened without the close contacts with the Arabs, and, again, this is of course my own personal pov, Iconoclasm is totally a non-Roman-like phenomenon.
The best attempt to escape this was Diocletian's tetrarchy, but that just led to yet another civil war.
Instead of drafting these poeple into the empire, Rome recruited foreigners for the army, while the productivity of the domestic population kept going down. Eventually the state, needing to pay both the welfare receipients and the army, ran out of economic capacity to provide for both groups. Stopping the dole was if possible more dangerous short term than not paying the provicial armies, since the proletariat in Rome/Constantinople could riot instantly, and overthrow any emperor.
Still, the effect is the same. A large proletariat with very little income demanding to be fed by the state. With significant political power, based on making up a large percentage of the population in the capital.
It was implemented because it got votes. It's not a coincidence that it was restricted to people who could vote.
You get welfare whenever you expand the franchise too far.
So, pray tell, what was the step too far (in no particular order):
- women
- slaves
- non-property owners
- non-poll-tax payers
- 18 year olds
... and in which of those categories do you fall?
What effect the dole had on the economy seems to be somewhat disputed. Clearly, far-left/marxist academics will want to downplay any effect and liberterian/right wing academics will probably overstate the effect.
Descriptively, it is a fact that inflation started to become a big problem not long after Marcus Aurelius added wine and pork to the dole.
Clearly, there were other factors involved, especially corruption. In fact, I think all factors were contributing to the same net effect, they all reduced the number of people (especially free people) contributing to economically to the economy and specifically the economy of the state.
- Slavery drove down the price of labor, laborers lost their jobs.
- The dole kept the laborers from re-joining the labor market, either as workers or by starting businesses.
- Corruption limited tax income from the upper clases.
- The governement introduced an increasing number of inefficiencies in the economy, by debasing the currency, allowing tax-farming and limiting economic freedoms (for instance, workers were turned into serfs and price controls on goods were introduced). All of which reduced the supply side of the economy.
- A mercenary based military was expensive to maintain, and very unreliable when not paid.
Another way to see the factors above, is that as the population (both upper and lower classes) were granted privileges during good times, these were seen as irrevocable rights by an increasingly entitled populace, while the comprehension of what goods and services were needed to make these benefits possible was lost to most people.
Gradually, the state was running out of money, and had to debase the currency and increase taxes to remain solvent. Both types of actions would only privide temporary relief. The debasement caused inflation, and tax increases led to corruption going up and production going down.
Eventually, the government ran out of ways to continue to pay the mercenaries. At that point, it was too late to convince the idle citizenry to go back to productive work or to serve in the army, as that part of Roman culture had died out.
Eventually, the collapse had to come. As barbarians took control at the borders, the economy collapsed, causing massive unrest in the entitled population. Partisan groups started clashing in the streets. Invasions, civil wars, utilities (such as aquaducts) shutting down and eventually an unstable food supply caused disease, hunger and death. At first, the population was going down slowly, then quickly. Over a few centuries the population of 1 million had become 30000.
In a 1000 years, maybe historians will have the same discussions about Western Civilization's collapse. Was it smog from coal plants, corruption of the leaders, mass migrations or simply the whole population becoming lazy and entitled that caused the collapse?
You can speculate what caused that collapse, that in turn caused the fall and there are also many causes to consider, but again, there is one intermediate cause that is Christianism. The religion altered several aspects of the economy: slavery, commerce and lending.
Now you can again speculate about what make them think it was a good idea to adopt Christianism as official religion. If a previous crisis existed that shook the foundations of the empire. Anyway, it seems the solution solved nothing.
So xxx --> Christianism --> Economy --> Fall
I'm no fan of Christianity, but the claim that it was central to the fall always comes off as somewhat lazy. Religion needed reform, and maybe they could have done it in a different manner which would have led to a more stable West but it just as likely could have destroyed the East.
It's the Economy, Steve. In particular, if you discourage commerce, you're playing with fire in an empire with such an extension.
I'm no fan of Christianity, but the claim that it was central to the fall always comes off as somewhat lazy.
I thought I'd added enough nuance. The three aspects I mentioned are not trivial and can be connected directly. In fact, it's not something that just occured to me, there's abundant literature on them and are considered most probable causes by a lot of scolars.
You did indeed mention "three aspects". But merely mentioning a thing proves nothing. For instance, you say that the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity had an effect on the practice of slavery, which had an effect on commerce. Plausible, for sure. But Christian Rome didn't abolish slavery or slave-trading, or anything like that. Do you have evidence that what changes Christianity brought to the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire actually harmed its economy?
Again, you mention lending. Many Christians have been opposed to lending at interest, or to lending at (what they see as) excessive interest. But so far as I can tell the Roman Empire did not abolish or greatly restrict lending when it became Christian. Constantine himself set a maximum interest rate of 12%, which doesn't seem unreasonably low, and it seems that that stayed in place for at least the next couple of centuries. (And, in particular, until after the fall of the Western empire.)
So I think you need more detail and more evidence for the claim you're making.
Also: "Christianism"? The usual term is "Christianity", as I'm sure you know. People sometimes make a distinction between "Islam" the religion and "Islamism" the political ideology, but if you make a similar distinction then it seems to me that what the Roman Empire converted to was Christianity rather than Christianism. Are you making that distinction, or some other distinction, or are you just hoping that your choice of wording will annoy Christians?
(I am not a Christian and think it's very plausible that the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity was bad for it and for the world. Also, possibly, for Christianity. So I'm not making the criticisms I do out of a desire to support Christianity and suppress criticism of it.)
I don’t know why people obsess over finding a cause for the fall of Rome when it was one of the world’s longest lasting empires. We should be more interested in how it endured for over a millennia (nearly two thousand years if you count the Republic) whereas most continent-spanning empires fell apart in a handful of centuries or even decades.
The division of the empire itself was a consequence of the commerce collapsing. The fall of Rome is another one.
When Rome invaded the hellenistic region, there was already an established economy that relied a lot less on big domains worked by slaves and that region managed to keep it that way. Thus when the slave mode of production came to a dead end, it was the part of the empire that relied massively on it that collapsed.
Another interesting point was that the adoption of Christianity made the elite even bigger with the whole Church apparatus now living the life and putting even more pressure on the system.
I wish I would find the sources again.
This whole theory came from the 60s where Marxist historiography was very popular and really is not based on much.
It just basically taking the Marxism 101 and plastering it over the historical empire and the source base for it is a few political speeches.
Modern history that looks this can almost universally not verify many of these claims based on the sources used. Making incredibly complex economic argument to analyses a society where we have almost 0 visibility on economic data is quite a tall order.
By the time the empire was at maximum size, the Roman citizenship was very broad and while large scale slave agriculture was still a thing the majority of the empire was not large scale slave agriculture. Certainty far less so then it was in late Republic where the amount of slaves compared to the amount of citizenship was far higher.
The reality is that by 300-400 century Roman was a pretty advanced economy that had a very significant private sector, banking, a mix of all kinds of agricultural system and a huge amount of trade. Modern research suggest analyzing Rome as some elite land based economy is a really bad idea.
> Another interesting point was that the adoption of Christianity made the elite even bigger with the whole Church apparatus now living the life and putting even more pressure on the system.
This fails to account for the fact that Paganism also had many state sponsored position and that the state spent a lot on religious festivals. Both in Rome and all over the empire.
Also, it has to be considered that Christianity only became relevant by the point where the problems of the Western empire were already very apparent and the constant civil wars of the 300rd century caused massive problems.
In effect, Christianity is really more the result of the Roman instability then the cause.
It does seem that the western half of the empire was more dependent on slavery. But Christianity wasn’t the only factor in that. With fewer conquests there were fewer slaves to take.
For the Economy, I ask, not sure if slaves were better off.
Also, the ban wasn't the only effect I mentioned. Actually it seems that attacking commerce and credit could be even more debilitating.
But wether the effect is significant enough, I am not qualified to judge.