Living Car Free - The return of the household economy

A "household economy" is a system in which the basic unit of production is the family household, and where the households produce most of the goods and services that they themselves consume.

This is in contrast with today's predominant monetary economy, where the unit of production is a business organized as a financial entity, not as a household. In a monetary economy, goods and services are produced for trade, not for immediate personal consumption.

In the 20th century, the household economy came close to disappearing in the United States. John Michael Greer wrote (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/08/reviving-household-economy.html)


Nowadays, by contrast, nearly all those goods and services are either produced commercially or are not available at all. This represents an economic transformation on a massive scale, and yet it’s one that has seen remarkably little discussion by economists.

It also represents a social transformation of equally massive scope. Visit the library of an American public university that has not yet taken up the currently fashionable habit of purging its collection of “outdated” materials, wander through the stacks until you find the dingiest and most neglected shelves in the building, and odds are that you’ll be looking at the mummified remains of a field of study, a profession, and a university department as dead as the dinosaurs, and a good deal less popular nowadays: home economics.

Not all that many decades ago, an impressive network of home economists working for universities, county extension services, and private industry provided an extensive support system for the household economy. Backing that network, and the by no means negligible expenditures that supported it, was an almost universal consensus that recognized the social and economic importance of the household economy. The experience of two world wars, in which government-promoted home economics measures had played a major role in softening the impact of food rationing and enabling the United States to feed armies and allies alike, gave support to that consensus.

Search for "household economy" to find other articles like that.

Since I first walked through the looking glass into the world of retirement and car free living, I've been spending more of my time in the household economy and less in the monetary economy. The household economy is not inherently car dependent. I'm nowhere near being self sufficient, or course, I'm just saying I'm producing more of what I need at home and buying less from commercial sources. My game now is more do-it-myself, repair-at-home, economize, cook from scratch, garden, and so forth.

You can look at transportational cycling in terms of the household economy. On a bike, you're producing your own motive power instead of buying gasoline. You can also keep the bike in good repair by your own efforts, with less dependency on external services and infrastructure. Here on LCF, we've discussed the cost of cars vs bikes. I think the bottom line is, biking=spend less/earn less, driving=spend more/earn more - which fits with the concept of transportational cycling as more of a household economy strategy and less of a money economy strategy.

Reviving the household economy has a double positive impact now. It helps reduce car dependency and it also helps make up for losses of income due to unemployment. Some people may be in situations where they are totally locked into car dependency, in which case it is necessary for every family member possible to have cars and maintain jobs in the money economy. Others may have more flexibility. People who are retired, or stay-at-home parents, or unemployed adult children, are not necessarily an economic burden if they can be productive in the household economy.

We have been running household economy for years:D I currently live on 40 acres along with my in-laws. We garden and share the bounty, I repair things for them and us, my MIL cuts our hair and cooks for all of us(we all help, but she does the bulk of it), my wife and I both work in the "real world" and provide income to provide for many other things for all of us. My parents live 20 miles away in town, we spend the occasional weekend there, when we do I take farm fresh eggs and veggies from the garden to them. My mom still sews shirts for me and helps my wife make skirts, capes and blouses. I think I see even more of this in our future.

Aaron:)

By the way, there are plenty of ways for people to play this game without having to own a farm. I was getting into some of this stuff while I was still a condo dweller. The next best thing to gardening is cooking from scratch.

Anything that can be made at home, repaired, reused, repurposed, or even simply conserved away is a worthwhile amount of household productivity. It doesn't show up in the Gross National Product, but what the heck, the GNP's done nothing for most people lately anyway.

By the way, there are plenty of ways for people to play this game without having to own a farm. I was getting into some of this stuff while I was still a condo dweller. The next best thing to gardening is cooking from scratch.

Anything that can be made at home, repaired, reused, repurposed, or even simply conserved away is a worthwhile amount of household productivity. It doesn't show up in the Gross National Product, but what the heck, the GNP's done nothing for most people lately anyway.


I completely agree that you don't need a farm or even a plot of land to be in the household economy. Community gardens are one way, rooftop gardens another. Also the last time I checked a sewing machine doesn't take up much real estate.:D and god knows I would rather have nice hand made clothes that fit, rather than buying stuff that sort of fits from where ever. I also appreciate the fact that I KNOW who is making my things for me, I am funny that way.

Aaron:)

We have been running household economy for years:D I currently live on 40 acres along with my in-laws. We garden and share the bounty, I repair things for them and us, my MIL cuts our hair and cooks for all of us(we all help, but she does the bulk of it), my wife and I both work in the "real world" and provide income to provide for many other things for all of us. My parents live 20 miles away in town, we spend the occasional weekend there, when we do I take farm fresh eggs and veggies from the garden to them. My mom still sews shirts for me and helps my wife make skirts, capes and blouses. I think I see even more of this in our future.

Aaron:)


Sound like you folk's are living a rich full life as it should be lived. Kudos!:thumb:

We have been running household economy for years:D I currently live on 40 acres along with my in-laws. We garden and share the bounty, I repair things for them and us, my MIL cuts our hair and cooks for all of us(we all help, but she does the bulk of it), my wife and I both work in the "real world" and provide income to provide for many other things for all of us. My parents live 20 miles away in town, we spend the occasional weekend there, when we do I take farm fresh eggs and veggies from the garden to them. My mom still sews shirts for me and helps my wife make skirts, capes and blouses. I think I see even more of this in our future.

Aaron:)

*Sigh*

Jealous now.

Have any of you read this?

http://clevercycles.com/?p=22

Personally, I don't think there ever really was such a thing as household economy. My reading and education have led me to think that humans always lived in social groups that were larger than a family.

Just recently, pottery shards were found in China dating back 18,000 years. There is evidence of cross-cultural trade dating back even further than that. These findings are evidence that humans lived in larger social groups and had specialization of labor much earlier than previously thought.

I applaud and even envy those (like Platy and wahoonc) who live more self-sufficiently. But even they are co-dependant with other people outside their family groups. It would be nearly impossible, IMO, to live in a totally closed family system and remain fully human.

Personally, I don't think there ever really was such a thing as household economy. My reading and education have led me to think that humans always lived in social groups that were larger than a family.

Just recently, pottery shards were found in China dating back 18,000 years. There is evidence of cross-cultural trade dating back even further than that. These findings are evidence that humans lived in larger social groups and had specialization of labor much earlier than previously thought.

I applaud and even envy those (like Platy and wahoonc) who live more self-sufficiently. But even they are co-dependant with other people outside their family groups. It would be nearly impossible, IMO, to live in a totally closed family system and remain fully human.

It is not so much the family groups as it is the local groups. Know where your stuff comes from, I know the farmer that raises the beef we buy, I know the people at my local grocery store...including the owner! To me this is a large part of it, not buying things made in some far off land by someone working in a factory owned by who knows who.

James Kunstler and several others indicate that this where they think the US is headed, back to the day when you bought local, lived local and supported local. No you can't get everything in a single location, but to me it is certainly worth trying to get things that are made close to home. You can see the results of your labors being enjoyed by others and can even lend a helping hand when another is in need. It was before my time, but my local grocery store owner had a store burn to the ground, it reopened in less than a month. Local block masons, electricians, plumbers and suppliers rallied to his need because of what he gives back to the community, many of them worked their normal job and spend every evening and weekend helping to get the store restored and back in business. To me this is what household economy is about, perhaps it should be named community economy. But we also used to do a lot more at home that we do these days, instead of buying prepackaged dinners that contain food was grown in Mexico and Brazil, packaged in Kansas, and sold at a store owned by a Dutch holding company that is owned by people from the UAE we should concentrate on buying our food and products from local producers and spending the time to make them at home. This is pretty much the way I grew up and try to continue to live.

As for closed family groups/communities, look no further than the Amish, yes they do depend on the outside world to a point, but I suspect they would be better able to show us the way than anyone else.

Aaron:)

It is not so much the family groups as it is the local groups. Know where your stuff comes from, I know the farmer that raises the beef we buy, I know the people at my local grocery store...including the owner! To me this is a large part of it, not buying things made in some far off land by someone working in a factory owned by who knows who.

James Kunstler and several others indicate that this where they think the US is headed, back to the day when you bought local, lived local and supported local. No you can't get everything in a single location, but to me it is certainly worth trying to get things that are made close to home. You can see the results of your labors being enjoyed by others and can even lend a helping hand when another is in need. It was before my time, but my local grocery store owner had a store burn to the ground, it reopened in less than a month. Local block masons, electricians, plumbers and suppliers rallied to his need because of what he gives back to the community, many of them worked their normal job and spend every evening and weekend helping to get the store restored and back in business. To me this is what household economy is about, perhaps it should be named community economy. But we also used to do a lot more at home that we do these days, instead of buying prepackaged dinners that contain food was grown in Mexico and Brazil, packaged in Kansas, and sold at a store owned by a Dutch holding company that is owned by people from the UAE we should concentrate on buying our food and products from local producers and spending the time to make them at home. This is pretty much the way I grew up and try to continue to live.

As for closed family groups/communities, look no further than the Amish, yes they do depend on the outside world to a point, but I suspect they would be better able to show us the way than anyone else.

Aaron:)

Very well said, Aaron. I also think more localized economies are the way to go. Yes, we would have to give up some advantages of a world economy, but we would gain other advantages in return. As for a name, bill McKibben suggested "Deep Economy" (http://www.billmckibben.com/).

BTW, I think most Amish work second jobs, usually in factories (men) and restaurants or food processors (women). They also have fairly large communities, and certainly depend on people outside their families for assistance such as barn raisings and quilting bees.

*Sigh*

Jealous now.

Have any of you read this?

http://clevercycles.com/?p=22

I had not seen that particular post, interesting reading. We are just now starting to get handle on the permaculture aspect of it, many old farmsteads and homesteads planted fruit and nut orchards for the consumption of the inhabitants. We currently have apples, figs, pears, grapes and persimmons on site and bearing fruit. More fruit and nut trees will be planted in the coming seasons. Also have a vineyard about 15 miles from us...wonder if they want some free range eggs in exchange for a bottle or two:D

Aaron:)

It is not so much the family groups as it is the local groups. Know where your stuff comes from, I know the farmer that raises the beef we buy, I know the people at my local grocery store...including the owner! To me this is a large part of it, not buying things made in some far off land by someone working in a factory owned by who knows who.

James Kunstler and several others indicate that this where they think the US is headed, back to the day when you bought local, lived local and supported local. No you can't get everything in a single location, but to me it is certainly worth trying to get things that are made close to home. You can see the results of your labors being enjoyed by others and can even lend a helping hand when another is in need. It was before my time, but my local grocery store owner had a store burn to the ground, it reopened in less than a month. Local block masons, electricians, plumbers and suppliers rallied to his need because of what he gives back to the community, many of them worked their normal job and spend every evening and weekend helping to get the store restored and back in business. To me this is what household economy is about, perhaps it should be named community economy. But we also used to do a lot more at home that we do these days, instead of buying prepackaged dinners that contain food was grown in Mexico and Brazil, packaged in Kansas, and sold at a store owned by a Dutch holding company that is owned by people from the UAE we should concentrate on buying our food and products from local producers and spending the time to make them at home. This is pretty much the way I grew up and try to continue to live.

As for closed family groups/communities, look no further than the Amish, yes they do depend on the outside world to a point, but I suspect they would be better able to show us the way than anyone else.

Aaron:)

I agree with this somewhat, but what about the stuff you can't get locally? You could say you don't need it, true. But that would make our lives, just a little less interesting? I like the idea of the way Velo Orange does his stuff, quite a few things he sells come from small, sometimes one man operations, he makes a point of telling you about it. I have no problem buying stuff from such operations. What I don't like is buying mass produced crud, that is built down to a price, in the cheapest labour market the corporation can find, then have them spend all their R&D dollars on marketing.

I agree with this somewhat, but what about the stuff you can't get locally? You could say you don't need it, true. But that would make our lives, just a little less interesting? I like the idea of the way Velo Orange does his stuff, quite a few things he sells come from small, sometimes one man operations, he makes a point of telling you about it. I have no problem buying stuff from such operations. What I don't like is buying mass produced crud, that is built down to a price, in the cheapest labour market the corporation can find, then have them spend all their R&D dollars on marketing.

I have no problem with sourcing something I need from some non local source. Believe me I buy global when I cannot get it local. Our bicycles are a great example, AFAIK there are NO US manufacturers for generator lights, even mediocre quality ones. I have sourced all most all of bike lights from B&M which are made in Germany.

I know of very little that is made in the US anymore other than trash bags and socks. I even saw toilets and other ceramic plumbing items for sale that had been made in China. Pathetic when a Chinese made toilet shipped halfway around the world can be sold for less than one made 40 miles down the road.

As an example of poor sourcing IMHO... I buy my glasses from a local optometrist, she grinds the lenses in her shop and assembles the glasses...in her shop, yes I pay a bit of a premium for them compared to a big box retailer, but if there is an issue I deal with her, not some hourly person who could care less.

Buy some glasses from Walmart and who makes them, where do they come from? In the Columbus, OH area they used to come from a large optical supply lab in the area that employed around 400+ local people, but in the name of profits that facility has been closed and the work sourced from Reynosa, Mexico. Not exactly local, also if you need immediate repairs, like a lost lens or broken frame? What are your options...wait for a lens to be shipped from Mexico? I have had a pair of glasses repaired by her after hours when I called and told her I was on the way in but had been delayed due to bad weather. Hopefully I will be able to return the favor to her one day.

Aaron:)

A "household economy" is a system in which the basic unit of production is the family household, and where the households produce most of the goods and services that they themselves consume.

This is in contrast with today's predominant monetary economy, where the unit of production is a business organized as a financial entity, not as a household. In a monetary economy, goods and services are produced for trade, not for immediate personal consumption.

In the 20th century, the household economy came close to disappearing in the United States. John Michael Greer wrote (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/08/reviving-household-economy.html)

Search for "household economy" to find other articles like that.

Since I first walked through the looking glass into the world of retirement and car free living, I've been spending more of my time in the household economy and less in the monetary economy. The household economy is not inherently car dependent. I'm nowhere near being self sufficient, or course, I'm just saying I'm producing more of what I need at home and buying less from commercial sources. My game now is more do-it-myself, repair-at-home, economize, cook from scratch, garden, and so forth.

You can look at transportational cycling in terms of the household economy. On a bike, you're producing your own motive power instead of buying gasoline. You can also keep the bike in good repair by your own efforts, with less dependency on external services and infrastructure. Here on LCF, we've discussed the cost of cars vs bikes. I think the bottom line is, biking=spend less/earn less, driving=spend more/earn more - which fits with the concept of transportational cycling as more of a household economy strategy and less of a money economy strategy.

Reviving the household economy has a double positive impact now. It helps reduce car dependency and it also helps make up for losses of income due to unemployment. Some people may be in situations where they are totally locked into car dependency, in which case it is necessary for every family member possible to have cars and maintain jobs in the money economy. Others may have more flexibility. People who are retired, or stay-at-home parents, or unemployed adult children, are not necessarily an economic burden if they can be productive in the household economy.

I was trained for the "market economy" and live now in the "household economy." As the eldest female child, I was pressured to drop out of the market economy back in the mid-1990s when the jobs that I was accepting were slipping into a waste of my time since they paid so little to maintain a acceptable (meaning a viable livable) standard of living. Being a full time caregiver to my elderly father meant that he was able to live at home until he died rather than being shipped off to some dismal nursing home-thus saving me and mine over 50 thousand US dollars a year. The jobs now-the ones that still exist-are worse than even then, so I am continuing in this capacity. My bikes allow me to live in a more simple life. Not being in a "rat race" job with the resulting lifestyle allows me to pursue what I am really needed to do in life. Right now this means caring for sickly relatives, later on focus on my own soon-to-be deteriorating health. The skills that I was able to pick up post university in the then dying home making department of my local community college in the early 1980s (sewing, cooking, managing money) are more likely to be used than the high brow fancy courses that I took in college. While I do feel isolated at times, the real living vs. the phony life I was expecting to participate in when I graduated back in the 1980s is not missed at all. The only thing I miss is a steady income.

I was hoping that temporary work would have continued but apparently I was wrong. Everything that could be outsourced overseas is picking up steam and rapidly increasing at present.

IEverything that could be outsourced overseas is picking up steam and rapidly increasing at present.
That's the basic problem. We'll wave goodbye to our former market economy as it sails off boldly into the sunset. They think they don't need us any more and they think they'll like it better over in Dubai and Shanghai. My attitude now is, good luck boys, don't let the door hit ya in the ... etc etc.

By the way, there are plenty of ways for people to play this game without having to own a farm. I was getting into some of this stuff while I was still a condo dweller. The next best thing to gardening is cooking from scratch.

Anything that can be made at home, repaired, reused, repurposed, or even simply conserved away is a worthwhile amount of household productivity. It doesn't show up in the Gross National Product, but what the heck, the GNP's done nothing for most people lately anyway.

I'm very interested to see what Rowan has been up to with our place ... and I'll get to see in 4 days! :D

But he's been telling me about the bathroom he is building for me ... so far it's being constructed out of reclaimed material that was written off in the fire. He's even using the heat from the outside of the fireplace ... heat that is just lost right now ... to heat the bathroom.

Personally, I don't think there ever really was such a thing as household economy. My reading and education have led me to think that humans always lived in social groups that were larger than a family.

Just recently, pottery shards were found in China dating back 18,000 years. There is evidence of cross-cultural trade dating back even further than that. These findings are evidence that humans lived in larger social groups and had specialization of labor much earlier than previously thought.

I applaud and even envy those (like Platy and wahoonc) who live more self-sufficiently. But even they are co-dependant with other people outside their family groups. It would be nearly impossible, IMO, to live in a totally closed family system and remain fully human.

Malcolm Gladwell in the "The Tipping Point" devoted quite a few pages to what he called the optimal social unit. He argued that these were ideally about 150 people. Any more than that and the group started to either fall apart or split. Any less than that and the group tended to dissolve. His social groups could be anything from an extended family, a small village, a guild, a group of friends in an urban setting, an army unit...

I would also suspect that these ideal groups need to interact with other similar groups beyond basic survival needs. For example, you might be able to provide all basic living necessities, but would like to buy something produced by another group. So you barter for the goods.

In our current social situation, I don't think too many of these groups would survive too long w/o the interaction with these larger units. I know there aren't many people I know who have the first clue about how to produce a loaf of bread from wheat. However, give them some flour and they are good to go.

However, after reading Platy's initial post, is he saying these household unit need to be self-sufficient? For starters -- in our society -- we would need to go through a long phase where we evolved in that direction. We could perhaps become 20% self-sufficient in food and 90% in transportation.

However, after reading Platy's initial post, is he saying these household unit need to be self-sufficient? For starters -- in our society -- we would need to go through a long phase where we evolved in that direction. We could perhaps become 20% self-sufficient in food and 90% in transportation.

I don't think the article means self sufficient as in you have to take everything from total raw materials to the finished product. But think about it, how many people know how to really cook from scratch using fresh or raw ingredients, or plan a balanced nutritious meal, bake a loaf of bread, sew a button on, or even cut a pattern and sew a shirt? Change oil in their cars, change a tire on a bicycle, fix a sticking door or window, cut hair, garden, raise a few hens for eggs,...

People are constantly amazed by the things we do on our property, we do occasionally hire someone to do something we don't have the time to do, or the manpower. But we all of the above and more.


Aaron:)

People are constantly amazed by the things we do on our property, we do occasionally hire someone to do something we don't have the time to do, or the manpower. But we all of the above and more.

Aaron:)

BTW - Rowan is working on setting up solar power. We do have a solar panel that is all right, but he's looking at purchasing something better, more efficient. We're completely off the power grid up there, so it's up to us to figure out another method of providing power. :)

However, after reading Platy's initial post, is he saying these household unit need to be self-sufficient?
I'm saying that we can make up for a portion of lost income by doing more things for ourselves at home. To some extent this is common sense. If your income goes down a little, fire the lawn guy and do the mowing yourself. Eat out less and eat at home more.

If your income drops a lot, and especially if it looks like a long term problem, then you may have to restructure your life. In this case your focus changes from "how do we get more income" to "how do we live with less income".

I think it's counterproductive to focus on total self sufficiency. That's so out of reach for most people that it's discouraging to even think about it. The numbers you mentioned, 20% self sufficiency for food and 90% for transportation, are still worthwhile and probably achievable by many (not all) people. The 90% self sufficiency for transportation could come, of course, from bicycling. The 20% self sufficiency in food may come from gardening, or it could equally well come from cooking with fewer convenience foods.

Here's an example of the value of partial self sufficiency. Very few of us could build a bicycle from scratch. However, many of us can take an old junker bike and make it rideable, give it a new life. For economic purposes, by fixing up the old junker you have produced the equivalent of a "new" bicycle.

I can't make my own electricity, especially in the quantity required to air condition a house in a Texas summer. What I have been able to do is to add extra insulation to the house and seal up its air envelope. For economic purposes, that's the same as generating something like 4000 kilowatt hours of power every year.

So it's a perfectly good goal to think in terms of partial self sufficiency. It may not be as idealistically appealing, but it offers plenty of opportunity for using lower level skills in a leveraged way.

I'm very interested to see what Rowan has been up to with our place ... and I'll get to see in 4 days! :D

But he's been telling me about the bathroom he is building for me ... so far it's being constructed out of reclaimed material that was written off in the fire. He's even using the heat from the outside of the fireplace ... heat that is just lost right now ... to heat the bathroom.
Very interesting. I took a tour once at a historical house on Nantucket Island. The guide explained that the main survival problem there was the cold, windy winter. The early houses had their fireplaces in the center of the house so that no heat would be wasted on an exterior wall.

Well, we live in a new world, the household economy can use technology to generate income from home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8089037.stm

Some of us with too many bicycles acquired during the bubble can fix them up and sell them, for example. If you can too many vegetables from your garden, the internet gives you a larger market than your neighborhood.

Some of us with too many bicycles acquired during the bubble can fix them up and sell them, for example. If you can too many vegetables from your garden, the internet gives you a larger market than your neighborhood.
I wonder what the impact of a large number of people suddenly falling back on this type of "local sourcing" might be. Apparently, it would have an impact throughout the economy... bikes wouldn't be manufactured in China, nor would people be employed in transporting them. On the other hand, it might have a tremendous benefit for the local economy. Currency would stay in the same locale and possibly pass through several hands before it would event reach China for imported goods. (And last, but not least, imagine the savings for land-fills and other methods of disposal...)

The household economy is a great idea, and I also think we are heading in that direction. I recently moved to a small town that has sort of a town philosophy towards that and I could not be happier. I think that the idea of the household economy, like many have said earlier in this thread, does in fact have limits, and always had in history. Good luck growing a rubber tree for bicycle tires in Montana or Ohio, likewise forging your own chain links, but of course growing the majority of our own food (both at home or local farms) and having local seemstresses/sewers making clothes, local furniture builders building furniture, things like that are perfectly feasable and a very positive change.
I was reading Deep Economy for the second time the other day and I just cannot get over that New York state produces 10 times as many apples as it consumes, yet imports 80% of the apples it consumes from somewhere else..the logic of that?

I was reading Deep Economy for the second time the other day and I just cannot get over that New York state produces 10 times as many apples as it consumes, yet imports 80% of the apples it consumes from somewhere else..the logic of that?

I was thinking of a success story from that same book (or maybe it was from a magazine article by the same author). The city of Burlington, Vermont grows about 10 per cent of it's own food within the city limits. Most of the food comes from small commercial growers who farm on a former landfill, IIRC. And Vermont doesn't exactly have the ideal farming climate.

Some people have proposed extensive urban agriculture, especially in cities like Detroit, where almost half of the houses are abandoned and falling down. When I look out my back window at the big city park behind my house, I can almost picture part of that mown lawn planted with corn plants, cabbages, pumpkin vines, and cherry trees.

I was reading Deep Economy for the second time the other day and I just cannot get over that New York state produces 10 times as many apples as it consumes, yet imports 80% of the apples it consumes from somewhere else..the logic of that?
It can be arithmetic. Look at the extreme case where only 1 New Yorker eats apples and there is one tree in the state. When the fruit ripens on the tree most of the apples get sold to other people. When the tree isn't produceing the one New Yorker has friends send him apples from other places where the trees are producing.

It can be arithmetic. Look at the extreme case where only 1 New Yorker eats apples and there is one tree in the state. When the fruit ripens on the tree most of the apples get sold to other people. When the tree isn't produceing the one New Yorker has friends send him apples from other places where the trees are producing.

Maybe that New Yorker could learn to can or dry apples. Maybe he could learn to enjoy strawberries and peaches, which ripen in a different season than apples.