I-Like-To-Bike

Where is the Tiny House movement (as distinguished from living in an RV or mobile trailer) really getting going in the U.S? Also what do you define as "living successfully", surviving until the next meal or handout; or until eviction from an illegal housing/squatting/zoning situation?
"Count" as what? simple? car free? living on an annuity without a paying job? child free? What are you talking about?

mconlonx

Who knows. Tiny house movement USA is a new thing, people are trying it out, as a long term thing like the person I was responding to asked, not enough modern data. Plenty historical data... RV and trailer dwellers have been around forever, ref. Gypsies, Roma, etc.

Retiree: not working, fixed income, no paying job or just PT work, child free. Perhaps living is subsidized housing, but if so, limited resources, so simple living. Most I know in this situation are also car free. But don't brag about it...

fietsbob

In the commercial press, the Tiny House Movement seems to Highlight is Young and Hip because that is what their advertisers like to covet as a Market.
Portlandia

Like the TV storys on Houseboats are all looking like they had 500k$ to put into them for just Decor.

the float house is another Tiny or bigger one, another Seattle-Portland thing

Theres some out here, but well inland in a quiet Slough .

Machka 

Generally, Rowan's question is about numbers and statistics.

How many people live in an RV or a house that they own under a certain square footage?
How long have they lived there?
Are they single? A couple? Or do they have children?

Even if a person lives off the grid and doesn't want to trumpet their lifestyle, they are still included in statistics. A bit of research could unearth some of this information.


But specifically, way back near the beginning of this thread, you said, "Youtube is full of videos of people who have tried different methods of living simply and self-sufficiently. Just google "off grid" and then "RV," "tiny house," etc. to get ideas." ... and Rowan quoted you and asked you to find one or some who have been doing it for more than 20 years ... and especially one or some who have been doing it for more than 20 years with children. Then post a link to their youtube video here.

tandempower

I took Rowan as making a rhetorical point that someone who gets excited about moving into a tiny house or RV may get disillusioned quickly after living in it for a while. Only Rowan can confirm or deny if this was his point. My response is that indeed people may get tired of living in this way AND that they might have the opportunity to buy a larger house or rent a larger apartment BUT that the burden of costs and debts goes up.

Credit allows people to make easy choices in the present but requires them to make future sacrifices in exchange. Saving and thrifty investments like living in a tiny house or RV require some initial sacrifice and getting used to but once/if you get used to it, the payoff is freedom from debt and a simpler lifestyle with less cleaning, house maintenance, etc. Obviously consumer culture is statistically littered with stories of people who take the bait of cheap credit, get something big now and pay for it dearly for a long time. It doesn't matter how many people give up on living in a tiny house or RV. That doesn't change the fact that those who can adapt their lifestyle to living happily on such a small scale will reap the benefits of being debt-free and able to maintain their own homes much more cheaply and easily.

I don't know why you try to diminish this fact by shifting the discussion in the direction of statistics or whatever else averts this essential conflict between high-debt big housing and low/no-debt small housing.

Machka 

Nope. Just wanted an example ... a video link.



Statistics do not diminish anything. I work with statistics every day ... that's my job. Statistics are fascinating and they enhance a discussion ... not diminish it. You can talk all you want ... but it is the statistics that back up what you say.

bragi

I agree with you that statistics are both fascinating and very useful on a macro level. But predicting human behavior is a lot like quantum mechanics: you can predict probabilities with a very high degree of accuracy, but you can't really tell what one individual is apt to do. It may be that the vast majority of humans cannot, in fact, voluntarily live in an RV or tiny house over a long period of time, but some can and do, in fact, live that way quite happily. In my own experience, it's variable. I know a few people who live on boats or in tiny houses in remote locations, and they appear to be able to live that way indefinitely. I tried living on my 9m sailboat, gave up after 3 months, and now settle for a more luxurious but still rather modest life on land. I know a lot more people, though, who can't seem to make ends meet no matter how much they make, partly because they're not very good at math, but mostly because they simply can't control their craving for more stuff. At the end of the day, most of us are like any other organism: we'll use all the resources we can possibly acquire until those resources are exhausted, at which point a harsh adjustment (i.e., natural selection) takes place.

Machka 

It is difficult to predict what might happen in the future ... but Rowan was asking for an actual (not rhetorical) example of someone who has done it for a lengthy period of time ... perhaps 20 years or more. And specifically someone who has produced a youtube video of their lifestyle, describing their experience and offering tips.

And more generally, I'd be interested in statistics about how many people have lived a "tiny" lifestyle for an extended period of time. Lots of us have done it temporarily ... but have people in the last 30 years, let's say, managed it long-term?

Roody

If you're that interested, and such an expert researcher, why don't you find the answer for yourself? Also, if Rowan is so interested, why is he not participating in this thread?

I highly doubt that there are any accurate figures on how many people live in tiny houses. There may not be many, but clearly a lot of people who dream or fantasize about living in these little huts. There are at least half a dozen TV shows about it and any number of books, magazines and websites.

Roody

Good post. My sister lived in a teepee in northern California for several years. Some of her friendds have been living off the grid for 30 or 40 years now, and have no intention of "coming in." I visitd a commune near Eugene, OR in 1981. Some of those people are still there, along with kids, grandkids, and others who have joined them over the years. I doubt if any of them have posted youtube videos or shown up in the statistics.

Not showing up in statistics...that's kinda the point of this lifestyle!

Along with, as you point out, being happy with a simple life and wanting to leave a small footprint so their children and grandchildrn will have a chance at a decent life.

Machka 

Rowan works ... lots. Long hours. Every day this month but one. He's very busy.

It was tandempower who said he knew of youtube videos ... if he knows of youtube videos, then why doesn't he post a link to one?

Roody

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...living&tbm=vid

Machka 

Here's an example of a form of simple living ... some of you might like this sort of living situation.

Whittier: The Alaskan town of just one building

Walter S

It may be, that people that live in a tiny house for a long time are not (often) the kind of people that make youtube videos or are very socially engaged in general.

Walter S

What are people doing about the legal issues? I've read that the tiny houses don't qualify as a residential home in most areas and that your presence on your own property will be rejected because you're not allowed to "camp" on your lot.

wahoonc

Depends on the area. I have 40 acres I can do just about anything I damn well please with it. Local college had several grad students express interest in tiny houses. They are working to get an section of land zoned for RV park so tiny house can be parked on it.

Aaron

tandempower

This is part of the reason I dislike Machka's will to statistics. Some people don't like being measured in terms of others and it's wrong to say, "well you may be living this way but you're in the minority so you don't really matter until enough other people create significant statistic with you."

More broadly, statistical comparisons are the wrong way to look at reality. At the most general level, humans like most mammals need refuge from the elements. There are a variety of ways to get out of the rain, cold, etc. Some people get evicted from a building and sleep under a bridge. They might not be happy about it but if they don't have the money, the credit, or the will to pay for something better, they'll be happier under the bridge than out in the rain until they can get a tent, etc.

Each mode of shelter has risks and responsibilities that come with it. Renting involves paying rent and sacrificing control over the management of one's own shelter. I.e. you have to rely on the landlord, managers, and maintenance people to mitigate issues for you. It can be complicated to deal with a leaky roof when you can't just go up there, find the leak, and patch it yourself, for example.

Tiny houses and RVs can be good because there's less of everything to deal with. You can build a tiny house in a few weeks or months. You can clean, coat, replace the roof in a day or two, if that. You're basically dealing with a tent with solid walls, roof, doors, windows, etc. Tent living is a lot cheaper and I've considered that even better than a tiny house might be to live in a tent and construct a small shed with kitchen and shower and possibly a loft for winter sleeping when it's too cold to sleep in the tent.

What Rowan (and others in this thread) are talking about, I believe, is the choice to buy or rent someplace that is beyond what you can maintain and repair on your own. That is a different kind of simplicity. If you have enough money/credit, you can live in a mansion with people to maintain and clean everything for you. You can pay people to cook for you at home or in restaurants every meal. You don't have to do anything yourself. The problem with this kind of simplicity is that it is coveted and the entire rat-race economy is devoted to the competition (often underhanded) to achieve this kind of simplicity by manipulating others economically to perform all the labor that is required to provide the simple lifestyle afforded to the big spender.

Avoiding this rat-race is a big part of 'living simply' from the perspective of broader liberation. Some people can live simply while their accountants, attorneys, staff, and personnel can't because they have to keep working to provide the beneficiary's lifestyle. Other people want to simplify their lives by becoming more self-reliant and not having the responsibility of keeping servants employed. Of course, even when you choose the path of independence, the political sphere aims to force you to provide jobs and income for others even if your goal is to live more independently. The struggle toward independence is long and hard in so many ways. The choice to pursue greater simplicity is just the beginning in many ways.

I-Like-To-Bike

There are exceptions; the Unabomber comes to mind.

I-Like-To-Bike

There are also a lot of people who dream or fantasize about living in outer space and other science fiction fantasy, not to mention those who dream of fighting Zombie and Vampire Wars. There must be at least half a dozen TV shows about such popular fantasies and any number of books, magazines and websites.

Doesn't make these fantasies any closer to a credible reality.

gregf83 

It sounds like you're confusing independence with simplicity. Living independently is not simple or enjoyable for most people. I wouldn't mind simplifying my lifestyle but I have no interest in reverting to our ancestor's lifestyle of living off the land and having to do everything myself.

I think I have a pretty simple lifestyle these days. My kids have left the house (which is way bigger than we need now), I work and earn far more money than I need which makes my life quite simple. I don't spend much time thinking about money. I have the opportunity to take on more responsibility and make more money but I choose not to.

You mentioned earlier that living simply required one to remain in a particular class or strata which may work for some but for others a low-income occupation may be very unsatisfying. My job may be considered complex to some but it is satisfying to me. Having a 'simpler' occupation would be boring and unsatisfying to me. I'm fortunate that my employment is challenging and happens to pay well which allows me to simplify other aspects of my life.

Walter S

I think of "simple living" as including a modest number of "things" in your life. You don't have a big house and lots of furniture. Think about what the executor of your estate has to deal with when you die. If you have cars and boats and 2nd homes and mortgages and other loans and entertainment centers and clothes you never wear etc that's not real simple

bragi

Not my cup of tea; it's like living in Soviet Siberia circa 1962.

This is a blatant sales pitch, but I can sort of see myself living in one of these, if I could afford the land to put it on:

YouTube Micro Homes - Bing Videos

Realistically, though, I'll probably hold on to my 800 sq ft. condo in the heart of Seattle, because I love living in this city, 800 sq., ft. is pretty roomy without being too excessive, and the mortgage is very reasonable by Seattle standards (about half as much as for a similar-sized rental in the same area).

bragi

There seems to be a double standard in some places. If it's OK to buy a lot, tear down the old, smaller, house and build a gigantic new 7,000 sq. ft. house that dwarfs the neighbors' old houses and blocks their views, it should be equally OK, if not more so, to be able to buy a lot and put a tiny house on it.

tandempower

I think you may be changing the meaning of 'simple' to include whatever you find preferable and therefore relaxing, regardless of how simple or complex it is, as in the case of your job. Obviously, if you prefer certain complexities over simplicities, that is your prerogative. Idk why you would feel the need to justify your tastes in terms of simplicity unless there are some status issues involved. I can tell you that I too prefer complexity in some ways; e.g. a few years ago when single-speed 'fixie' bikes became popular, I couldn't grasp why this level of simplicity in biking was worth more than being able to shift gears.

Simplicity and independence go together for me because all I do is imagine the simplest possible scenario, which is to be free to travel independently of any concern about money or how to sustain myself. I think of the ancient people who wandered around and found food and shelter as they went. I don't see what could be simpler than this. It's an ideal that I may never reach in full but if you begin to analyze what obstructs this level of freedom, economic interdependency is a major factor. I.e. you have expenses and bills and so you have to keep a source of income to afford these.

One may not be able to eliminate all expenses from one's life but the closer you get, the freer you are and what could possibly make life simpler than being completely free and independent of the demands put on you in exchange for those things you depend on for happiness?

Walter S

*should be*