Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Self sufficient living?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Self sufficient living?
ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 17, 2004 04:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I watched a programe on the telly last night called ''Wife Swap''. I think they have a version of it in the states. Well, normally it's fairly interesting to see the husbands and children dealing with a new mum for 2 weeks, and the women putting up with someone else's family and home situation. Last night's episode was particulary good.

In it, an upper middle class family; Joanna, Bernard, and their 10 year old daughter Talia swapped with a self-sufficient couple (changing names as can't remember them, watched it at 3a.m.)Deborah and Tom. Joanna did not work, but stayed home with Talia while Bernard worked a high paying job. They barely spent time together, and there was a lot of yelling in their house. Talia was a spoiled, bratty girl who got whatever she wanted, except the REAL attention of her parents. Joanna shopped, ate, and watched tv all day long, but did maintain the house and cook for her family. There was virtually no love between them at the beginning of the show.

Deborah and Tom were both stay at home parents who lived off their own garden, no electricity, and well water. They bought all their clothes, books, etc. at thrift shops or garage sales. They had two young daughters, probably 5 and 3, who were both smart and well behaved. They were vegetarian in their household, and didn't have a television. They had tons of books, arts and crafts projects, and they parented by giving their children options all the time and telling them exactly what was what. The love in their household was obvious, full of respect and unity, even from a 3 and 5 year old!!

So, they swapped for two weeks. The first week, the wives have to go with the flow of how the house normally works. Which for Joanna meant chopping wood, preparing all organic meals, and NOT having a television. She was angry, bitter, and confrontational the whole time. Tom tried to speak with her to help her understand why they lived the way they did, but she had no intrest in it. The first week for Deborah consisted of watching LOTS of television, preparing ready made meals ona gas oven (which she had no idea how to work), and cleaning up after Talia and Bernard. The second week for the wives, they get to swap what is the norm for the family, to what is the norm for them. Joanna took the family to ASDA (basically Wal*Mart), got a tv in the house, and cooked sugar-loaded, fat filled non-vegetarian foods. I don't think they ate the meat, but they did eat the non-organic veggies and ready made fries, lasagnas, etc. She also made Tom go and work at a car company, which he hated as he didn't agree with the overpopulance of cars, and rallied all throught the 90's for more efficient means of fuel and better public transportation. The first time the girls had a tv in front of them, the younger daughter got bored after about a half hour, but the older girl was mesmerized. Joanna seemed to think she had done something good for her. But when dinner time came, she didn't want to leave the tv. She screamed and cried and even turned violent. Tom was horrified, as he had never seen such behavior. In the personal interview with her, she claimed she would never let Talia act that way...

At the other house on their second week, Deborah blocked off the tv, demanded help from Bernard in the kitchen and around the house, and cooked organic vegitarian foods for them. Talia told her point blank ''I don't want to eat your horrible food, I want my tv back, I want my mum back, and I want MY food back!!''Bernard didn't say anything. Bernard and Talia complained through everything Deborah did, although when she had to live life their way, she made it very easy for them. She burst into tears at one point, claiming she just wanted them to be nice for once. She had organized a street party to raise money for an ecological charity. She called all the neighbors, made food, set up donations, and all she asked was that they attend, and try to have fun. Bernard complained right to the end, but at the party, he had a great time, and took partial credit for it. Deborah got Talia to play outside, and for her dad to spend time with her, and she finally calmed down, the last two days in the house were peaceful and respectful. Then came time for them to back to their respective homes.

Before they go home, they all sit down for a chat together to discuss what transpired. Bernard tried to explain to Joanna that the way Deborah and Tom dealt with their children was really quite good, and told her how Talia really just needed their attention more often, and perhaps for them to yell less. Deborah said that although the way they lived was nice, they had a nice house and things seemed convenient, and if it worked for them, she didn't have any bad thing to say, it just wasn't for her. Tom said he did have respect for their way of life, he didn't see why he would change the way he lived when he was following his heart the way he was already living.

Then Joanna spoke, and it seemed the experience left her none the better. She said she appreciated that they were different, but she didn't understand how anyone could not live ''in a normal society, like the rest of the world''. She also bore into them about how it wasn't fair that ''they'' (implying she and Bernard) had to work their butts off and pay taxes for people like them to live off benefits. She said she had no respect for what they were doing, and would not see their side of it. She, remember, is a stay at home mom herself, with a better relationship with her tv, than her daughter. Bernard looked embarassed to be sitting next to her, but that lasted about two seconds, as when they got home, Joanne tore the cardboard off the tv and threw the chips in the fryer, ready for life back to normal. When Deborah and Tom got back home, they spoke with the camera again, saying they were sure that Bernard and Joanne would go back to the way things were before, and although they wouldn't change they way they lived by popping into ASDA for some leather sandals anytime soon, they did have a better understanding of how others lived.

So, now you're wondering why I posted this story here? Well, it left me with a quesion: which is more important to most people IYPO, a cushy lifestyle, or raising a happy family the way you want to? Spending quality time with those you love, or just having nice things? And do you think Joanne is right about it not being fair, even though Deborah and Tom grew almost all their own food, didn't use benefit money for silly material goods, and seemed to have raised well balanced children?

Just something to think about....

Ghani

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted August 17, 2004 05:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Personally, I'd like to strike a balance between the two. I see no shame in wanting some comfort, but to the same degree, I'm not willing to kill myself nor sacrifice significant quality of life for 'things'.

One thing that I didn't understand in that story, is that Wife #1 seemed to criticize Family #2 because, "they (Family #1)...had to work their butts off and pay taxes for people like them to live off benefits" yet I don't see where it was stated that Family #2 lives off any form of public assistance. So where does criticism come from, and where does Family #2 get their money to go to thrift shops, etc (I assumed they did some sort of crafting they sold or something like that).

------------------
“The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 17, 2004 05:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
They are living off money they saved before buying their house for food/whatnot, but they get federal funding to pay the morgtage. Something like that.... I did some research, and they get about £130.28 per week to pay this. I used the benefits calculator on a site, put in their info, and that's what it said they were entitled to for living expenses.

IP: Logged

paras
unregistered
posted August 17, 2004 06:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Verrry interesting, Ghani! I particularly enjoyed noting the effect the TV had on the normally TV-less older sister.

I grew up with television, but have chosen not to watch it anymore, for many good reasons. I still enjoy a good movie, though. The video rental store is my friend...

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted August 17, 2004 07:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, then I would take issue with that - they are not then self-sufficient, if they require public assistance to pay their mortgage. Which isn't an argument for the opposing lifestyle by any means, just an observation that they are not truly self-sufficient, and thus their lifestyle is not realistic on the whole (for the masses), because it relies on the efforts of others (through taxes, etc) to sustain.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 05:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I found it interesting that Joanne said they didn't live like the rest of the normal world, she claimed that the majority of the world lives like her family, with material things and in a house with electricity, television, etc. Tom made the point to her that she was wrong, actually the majority of the world's population are actually very poor...she wouldn't have it. And trust me when I say that a great deal of families where I live over here, are doing the same thing. They rely on the government to aid them with rental or morgtage costs. I am not saying ALL of the people do, but a lot of them do, as the funding is quite readily available.

I just wanted an answer to the question....

IP: Logged

divinia
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 08:46 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm glad I read this. Thank you, Ghani, for posting it.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 09:31 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And trust me when I say that a great deal of families where I live over here, are doing the same thing. They rely on the government to aid them with rental or morgtage costs. I am not saying ALL of the people do, but a lot of them do, as the funding is quite readily available.

I'll actually have to echo Isis and say, "Well, they're not self-sufficient, then."
I guess that they *would* be in a society in which they could just build their own house from found materials, not worry about land costs, and barter their goods for others', but not in the UK.
If there weren't those people working at car factories, etc., and living a material lifestyle, there wouldn't be the taxes and subsequent governmental aid that Deb, Tom, and their children are relying on.
Bravo to them, though, for banning the T.V., taking steps to live organically, and doing what they can to spend time with their kids - now if only they'd take that extra step and make crafts or something along those lines to sell so that they wouldn't have to be connected with the government so.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 10:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OKAY!! Then it's not ''totally self sufficient'' living. But do you think Joanne and Bernard are better than them for living the way they do? Even though it may be detrimental for their family unit?

The only reason that I felt she was out of line was because TONS of people live off the government, expecting them to pay for their food, clothes, housing, child care, etc, and they don't want to work because they are lazy, not because they have moralistic issues against it. They keep popping out kids, driving around their government paid for cars, talking on their mobile phones, watching their digital cable, getting take aways 3 times a week, and wearing the newest clothes out of nice shops downtown. (All paid for using benefit money) I have no problem with people using government help to take care of the important things in life, but it's very frustrating when people take advantage of the system while others are using their own means to get by.

This was besides the issue I posted this thread to discuss. Let's just say that they DO earn money by selling self-made goods, for the sake of my original questions... What is more important to YOU, having nice things, or having a happy home life?

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 10:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This was besides the issue I posted this thread to discuss. Let's just say that they DO earn money by selling self-made goods, for the sake of my original questions... What is more important to YOU, having nice things, or having a happy home life?

Aw, ghanima, I didn't mean that as an attack - I just meant that just b/c tons of people do it doesn't make it sustainable.
I was being completely up-front on my reaction to everything else: Bravo to them. Really.
I believe that the family-unit-centered life-style that they've chosen is incredibly good for their children, and it would be a dream society that focused so much on cohesive, nurturing interaction as they do.
Having nice things is...well...nice, to be frank, but it pales in comparison the life-giving quality of happy and healthy families.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 10:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No worries, Prox, I was actually saying that about what I wrote above it, the little rant about how irritating it is to see people abuse the system. I guess I shouldn't have put in all the benefits stuff, if what I was getting at was about materials v. happiness....

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 10:36 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Backtracking a bit, my husband and I were talking about the American minimum wage last night, and the following occured to me:
It's funny how it seems that those who grouse the most about calls for a "livable wage" in the US citing a hike's impact on the ability to hire are the same that bemoan the state of society and the impact of unsupervised kids and/or welfare families. The minimum wage's currently US$5.75/hr or so...in most areas of the US, even both parents working over full-time in a two-parent household isn't enough to break out of poverty conditions. In order for them to in any way provide for their kids, they're faced with either taking government funding (which is actually set above the minimum wage rate...people can make more on welfare than in McDonald's and Wal*Mart) or working 2-3 jobs each, thereby leaving their kids with family or friends (if they're incredibly lucky enough to have such a support system) or to fend for themselves (b/c heaven knows where they can find affordable, non-rat-infested day care before the kids are eligible for Head Start).

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything...just my rant for the day.

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 10:39 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ghanima - That's *nuts*!
The UK actually provides enough funding for people to live like that (digital cable, take-out, etc.)???
Or are you saying that they're taking both the funding and making their own under-the-table money?

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 10:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, it's not like unemployment, it's what people are entitled to. They get to live in council houses, some nice, some not so nice. Depending on how many members of their family they have, they will either live in flats or houses. If they do work, they are still entitled to some form of benefits. There are money alotments for almost everyone, if they look for ways to get it. And you don't have to pay the money back, either. I believe there is a charge to live in the council places, but it's MUCH less expensive than a flat being rented from an independent renter. They can usually use the benefit money for living arrangements to pay this rent.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted August 18, 2004 11:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm still against benefit money regardless of what it's used for. In my view, benefit money is to help pull one out of rough times, it's not meant, nor is it maintainable over the long-term, as a means of living indefinitely.

As for the minimum wage, I would argue it all depends on where you live. In NY, Miami, SF, LA, it would nigh on impossible to live on minimum wage. But in Omaha, Kansas City, and less populated parts of the country, it's totally do-able. My one concern about raising the minimum wage substantially, is that it will probably cause employers to raise prices, thereby causing those earning minimum wage to STILL not be able to afford things.

Another thing that chaps my ass is the expense of organic foods. You could feed a family of ten very cheaply on twinkies and processed food, but to buy organic food costs a fortune. I know, I looked into it, and we just plain can't afford it.

Like I said originally, I'd like to see a balance struck between the two lifestyles.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 11:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, seriously now. I'm trying to drop the benefits thing. And in the situation I wrote about, they were only planning on doing that until both daughters were in school, then would be able to both work while they were there. NOT forever.

And about the organic foods, they grew their own veggies, herbs, beans, etc. They did not eat meat, nor shop at expensive organic food stores. They bartered with lorrey drivers for oil, dairy products and wood.

But ASIDE from their exact situation, which only made me THINK about those questions, forget I even posted the freakin' story if it's not getting to the point I was trying to make....Which is more important to YOU>>> a material life or one with happiness and respect in the family?

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted August 18, 2004 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Like I said originally, I'd like to see a balance struck between the two lifestyles.

IP: Logged

Aquarian Girl
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 12:53 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well obviously if you can only have either/or then you would want happiness and respect.

Reading the story though, I take issue with both families. With Joanna and Bernard, to me, being a stay-at-home mum is commendable. I plan to stay at home at least until my kids start school when I decide to have a family. But Joanna in particular just sounds like an awful parent and they sound like they have an awful family life. I see nothing wrong with her lifestyle choices per se. As for the other family, their organic lifestyle is all fine and good, and the values they are instilling in their children sound wonderful. But they are not self-sufficient if they are relying on the government to help them get by in any way, and because I don't believe in giving people welfare just because. I think one of them needs to get a J-O-B.

Trust me, I know exactly what you mean about people getting "benefits" for everything, Australia does it too (I'm an Aussie that lives in the US). I hate it! It's a pet peeve of mine. You can waltz down to Centrelink (social security) here in Australia and wail and moan about your woes, real or fabricated and you'll probably get "assistance" of some sort. I mean, you can quit your job in this country if you feel like it and waltz down to Centrelink and collect unemployment just like that (you cannot collect unemployment if you quit your job in the US, just FYI).

Sorry to hijack your thread but yes... give me happiness and respect over material things any day.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 02:55 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to agree with Isis here too.

They're not actually self sufficient if they do not pay their bills, house payment, etc. without help from benifits. I think it is abusing the system. The system isn't set up for people to live off of for their whole lives. Like Isis said, it's there for hard times.

My family has hit hard times several times and found various ways aside from government assistance to make our way. Not that we think it is weak or wrong to use, but we have had a means of making it in other ways so that assistance is available to people who REALLY need it. Divorce, loss of spouse, serious illness, disability... these are the reasons these funds are put into place. NOT because you don't want to work in mainstream society.

The family with both stay at home parents are not 'down on their luck'. They just don't want to. There is nothing noble in that, IMO, of course

They seem like good parents, from the story. That is one thing in their favor... but... does a good parent teach their kids to live off of the government while the rest of the country struggles everyday at work, having taxes deducted out of their check... wondering if they will have enough to make their rent, or electricity or whatever payment? I don't think they are teaching their children anything valuable in this respect. I think they are doing them a HUGE disservice.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 04:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you for pointing that out, Aquarian Girl. I think it's hard for Americans to understand the ''benefits'' situation in the U.K., and in Australia. IT IS NOT LIKE WELFARE. IT IS SET UP IN THE BUDGET EVERY YEAR FOR PEOPLE TO USE, IT IS READILY AVAILABLE AND FREQUENTLY USED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. Sorry to have to use caps there, but I don't think you pepole are getting the point. Forget I used the words ''self-sufficient'', obviously those were not the correct words to use. Forget I even shared the story, if all you see is the ''benefit'' situation. And if you have read the last thing that I posted, they are NOT planning on living that way FOREVER, they are both going to work once the children are both in school. How that is doing their children a disservice at a young age, when they don't know what is going on money-wise, I don't see.

When my parents split up, my mum stayed home with us , until we were all in school and she could go to school and better herself. She worked 3 jobs and got a bachelors degree, and still went to all my soccer games, all my brother's little league games, and my sister's cheerleading meets. When I think back to my childhood, I do not think about how much money we had, or didn't have, but how much my mum showed she loved us by spending quality time with us. How she did it, and never got government assistance, and never collapsed in exhaustion, I'll never know. But she was, is, and always will be my hero, and the most influential woman in my world.

I am not asking which lifestyle is better between the two families. Obviously if one could, one would balance a somewhat self-sufficient lifestyle, work, and still spend time with their family. Watching the program merely made me think... I guess you had to see it, and hear the people's views, to understand why I was moved to post about it.

Thanks for the input.
Ghani

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 06:14 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This family is from the US though, right... not the UK? Maybe I'm confused?? Doesn't always take much

Bill Maher on Wife Swap:

quote:
All right, New Rule: You can't call your show "Wife Swap" unless the other guy really gets to bang your wife. I didn't sign up for an hour of watching mom do some other family's laundry.

I thought that was pretty funny.

Children pick up most of their life's lessons from their parents in early childhood. I agree that they are teaching them wholesome values... not to value money over happiness is a great lesson. BUT, I think it is very important to teach your children integrity and a strong work ethic. Not that they can't teach them this being jobless, but I think it could possibly do them a disservice. I also think this could make them socially inept, since the majority of society is in the job force.

It is good to know they do intend on joinint the work force once their children are of school age.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 06:22 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BTW, I never commented on the other family because they sounded to me like upity, snooty elitests that are doing their children an even HUGER disservice.

I think there is a happy medium between both families.

IP: Logged

ghanima81
Moderator

Posts: 518
From: Maine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 18, 2004 08:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ghanima81     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, it's filmed over here. I don't know if it was a US show first, and they took the idea, or the other way around. (like a few of the hit US shows, Millionaire, Trading Spaces, American Idol, etc.)

I can see your point about them not getting the work ethic thing, but they all have to chop wood, tend the garden, get water from the well, things like that. So I kind of think that's a bit like having a work ethic, like the good ol' days.... without the small pox...lol

Yeah, I pretty much intend to live somewhat that way when I finally get settled in a career. I would like to have a nice garden, recycle everything I could into something useful, and NOT have a television. A computer is a must, as I live 3000 + miles away from my family, and e-mail is cheaper than long distance... plus I get to see pics of my neices all the time.

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted August 18, 2004 08:50 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ok...well, that clears some things up.

I thought it was the US version you were speaking of. Didn't know there was a version in the UK too... silly American

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a