Consider that If this was possible I could work at McDonald's for two years and then retire to that kind of life. Obviously that's not realistic
My read of the parent’s comment is that you aren’t paying for land.
You don’t need store bought fertilizer. I had a garden for a few years and avoided manufactured fertilizer for most of it. At an industrial scale, sure, it is needed, but not at an individual garden level.
No transportation needed other than your own two feet or what you can build. It’s not like you need to go into work every day.
You don’t need to buy animals for food if you can hunt and trap.
I’m not suggesting I agree with the $100/month limit, but things on your list are considered luxuries to the plan. Remember, you’re shooting for “QOL of someone that lived in the American West a hundred years ago” which wasn’t all that great.
But half the population lived in urban areas and only half of those people had electricity. So 50:50 you end up on Schrute Farms with no electricity and an outhouse.
Not even mentioning race here.
I don't think available goods and resources was as bad as this thread was making it out to be
I had two great grandmothers that lost the majority of their children as babies/toddlers.
I think a lot of people are not accounting for the costs of risks during that time. If everything went well, the rain was on time, no other nations attacked, no one fell ill, there were no birthing complications, then life was okay. But nature usually throws a few curveballs.
The sole question is can you on 100 dollars a month today live in a manner similar to what the average person in the 20s did
The empirical questions are what does 100 a month buy you today and what was the average lifestyle of a person in the 20s in terms of how much would it cost to buy that lifestyle today
Questions of how we got feminnism and better medicine since then is irrelevant and trying to distort a simple empirical analysis into a political one
The resource cost and availability that existed in 1920 were because of non-empirical decisions like politics and societies adaptations to new technologies. It's like you're taking a still frame of an avalanche and looking for a flat spot to build a foundation.
So, it is very shortly before economy goes boom and very shortly after everything literally went boom physically.
You'd need to scale the chicken operation to cover whatever your three month compost needs are and you'd need people to eat or use the eggs relatively quickly. You could produce, dry, and store the corn on site.
What am I missing?
The only reason costs are so high is because money can be printed at will so your savings will always be reduced.
Sadly most people don't learn anything about finance and think stocks and bonds are good investment vehicles and fractional reserve is great.
I guess if you go to a school that was designed to make you a factory worker then you will only learn how to be a worker and not the owner.
Oh, definitely. We are doing it on a universal scale right now.
If you meant smaller than that, then what are you restrictions?
You can burn your furniture to stay warm, and congratulate yourself on how well you're doing. But it doesn't take long to run out of furniture.
The fact that "long" here means less than a century or so doesn't alter that point. It just turns it into a generational problem rather than an immediate personal one.
in fact more and more people are being affected by climate damage, food shortages, and pollution with lasting effects. But apparently most of suburbia won't notice until it starts happening there too.
The thing I started doing all of this for was renewable compost, though, so at least that goal is met. I also don't give away my yard trash anymore (leaves, clippings). They go into the compost piles and get spread across the yard a few months later. My question moreso centered around fertilizer - why do we keep needing synthetic fertilizer if we can produce renewable compost chains?