# Farmers Only: A Dating Site for Farmers



## SifuPhil

Yes, this is a real thing. I had to check it out for myself, and now I'm disappointed that I didn't think of creating something like this.

FarmersOnly.com is geared  specifically to those who love the rural lifestyle and are searching for  someone who shares their culture and beliefs. 

Jerry Miller, founder of FarmersOnly, said he built the site after talking with a recently divorced friend.


She  said, 'How am I going to meet somebody new working on a farm all day?'  and I said, 'Don't worry, you'll meet somebody at church or whatever,'"  Miller said. "She said, 'I already know everybody around my area.'"


Three  years after it launched, the Web site is booming. It started with just  2,000 members and has more than 100,000 now. Miller said more than 75  couples have gotten married thanks to the site.


Despite the name,  Miller said the site is not just for farmers, but is for anyone who  enjoys a laid-back, country lifestyle and rural values. Membership is  free for a three-day trial and costs $15 a month or $45 a year.

Do the math ... $15 x 100,000 = $1.5 million / month. :aargh:


----------



## Michael.

One smart farmer?


----------



## Diwundrin

There's a TV reality show here called "The Farmer Wants a Wife".  It's a total circus where hip city girls are sent out to sample life on a farm or ranch and we're all supposed to watch enthralled at the 'relationship' developments...  'n.... spare me!

We have 'B&S' Balls here too.  Batchelor and Spinsters ball/party gatherings held out in the sticks for singles from far flung rural areas to meet.  They drive and fly in from thousands of miles around.  From what I've seen and heard they look to degenerate into drunken orgies but hey, I guess some long term partnerships are formed at them and they all have a great time so good on 'em.


----------



## rkunsaw

Join up Phil!!! you can find a good woman, leave the big city and raise hogs or cattle.


----------



## SifuPhil

rkunsaw said:


> Join up Phil!!! you can find a good woman, leave the big city and raise hogs or cattle.



Actually those B&S Balls sound better ... 

The only mistress in _my_ future is the sea - she's salty, wet and wild, and one day she'll end up taking my life.


----------



## SifuPhil

Not personally knowing any farmers I'm hard-pressed to judge whether this is something that appeals to them or not. I suspect that like any other special-interest group some will bless it while others curse it.

I would also think that many farmers now have no problem with modern technology. If that were not so then they wouldn't need the dating service since they'd still be marrying their sisters, which of course is only legal in certain parts of the Southern Ozarks ...


----------



## That Guy

I like farm girls . . .


----------



## SifuPhil

That Guy said:


> I like farm girls . . .


----------



## That Guy

Girls can be soooo mean!


----------



## Happyflowerlady

I think it is a great idea, and Internet dating seems to be the wave of the time, with all kinds of specialized dating sites now, so you can meet someone with similar interests as you have. I watched the ads, and I think they have done a great job with the ads, as well.
I am not sure how it will play out in real life. If two farmers meet, and both have a farm, one is going to have to give up their farm if they decide to get married, since they cant run two farms very well.....one is enough trouble.
But, if only one has a farm, they will be besieged with suitors wanting part of the Old Homestead, and could end up down the road in divorce court, and losing the farm. 
Still, I am sure that it will work out well for some of the country folk, who just want to find a person with similar interests and values in life.


----------



## SifuPhil

That's an excellent point, Lady - one I hadn't even considered. I can imagine how *The Battle of the Barnyard* could ensue if two land-holders got together - wow.

As for the siege of a sole land-owner, I imagine that could only help the ego of that person - 

"_Look at me, ladies - I have a big ... tract of land!_" layful:

I'm still trying to figure out the next special-interest group that I could start a dating service for, but so far all I've come up with are hermits, nuns and priests.


----------



## SifuPhil

TWHRider said:


> Come on - get that Dating Game Thinking Cap on - lol



Yeah, but I've been out of the game for so long now that it would be like a deaf-mute giving singing lessons to Pavarotti ...



> It might interest you to know there is at least one dating website for horse lovers -- I've seen its ads pop up on one of the horse forums I belong to



I saw those ads too, but I thought they meant "horse lovers" in a _different_ sense so I promptly went to a different site ... 




So far I've come up with:



*Tuna Helpers* - for fishermen
*Lick It!* - for stamp collectors
*Home, Alone and Deranged* - for cowboys


----------



## That Guy

SifuPhil said:


> View attachment 1774



Those cows are just bullies . . .


----------



## pchinvegas

haha one too many heiers in that pic I'd say


----------



## Anne

pchinvegas said:


> haha one too many heiers in that pic I'd say




you meant heifers, didnt you???    :rofl:


----------



## Happyflowerlady

I think there are definitely other special interest groups that would benefit from something like the farmers group, Sifu.  What about the retirees  that live in motorhomes and travel from one campground to another ? I think they have special singles jamborees for the singles, but maybe not a special website. And then there are the ones that live on houseboats, or even a sailboat, or want to do that , but need an experienced partner.
The farmers dating site will get a lot of the homesteaders, but what about the serious survivalists, and even the conspiracy-theorists must get lonely sometimes.
Of course, there are always the senior Surfer Boys....
So start building that multi-million dollar a month website, and you will be sailing around in your own giant sailboat sooner than you think.


----------



## SifuPhil

Happyflowerlady said:


> I think there are definitely other special interest groups that would benefit from something like the farmers group, Sifu.  What about the retirees  that live in motorhomes and travel from one campground to another ? I think they have special singles jamborees for the singles, but maybe not a special website. And then there are the ones that live on houseboats, or even a sailboat, or want to do that , but need an experienced partner.
> The farmers dating site will get a lot of the homesteaders, but what about the serious survivalists, and even the conspiracy-theorists must get lonely sometimes.
> Of course, there are always the senior Surfer Boys....
> So start building that multi-million dollar a month website, and you will be sailing around in your own giant sailboat sooner than you think.



*Survivalist Singles*

*Loners on Wheels*

*Surfer Singles*

See what I'm up against?

My only chance at this point is to corner the quadriplegic deaf-mute Buddhist piccolo player singles market ...

 



TWHRider said:


> I knew you'd think of something -- pretty good, I'd say:thumbsup:



Thank you!


----------



## That Guy

SifuPhil said:


> *Surfer Singles*



Nice site . . .    Unfortunately, I like surfing alone.


----------



## Anne

I guess the farmers dating site might include nature lovers as well, so we have to think of something original (as Phil certainly did, above).    One for compulsive shoppers might be a bad idea.... 

Maybe a site for greenies, or tree huggers??  People who seem to collect school buses, and display them in the yard??  (Quite a few of those here)


----------



## SifuPhil

Anne said:


> I guess the farmers dating site might include nature lovers as well, so we have to think of something original (as Phil certainly did, above).    One for compulsive shoppers might be a bad idea....



*CheckHimOut.com* - Ever wish you could just pick out a guy the way you pick out a pair of  shoes while shopping online? Sometimes wishes do come true...
*UK Cosmo article on CheckHimOut.com 
*​



> Maybe a site for greenies, or tree huggers??  People who seem to collect school buses, and display them in the yard??  (Quite a few of those here)



*Green Singles*

Now I have to admit I didn't find a bus collectors dating site per se, but there IS a *Bus Enthusiasts site* that might contain the necessary raw material ...


----------



## Anne

Bus enthusiasts; LOL  Does anyone really like travelling on a bus??  Horrors!!!

Well, a site for claustrophobics could be something....or not.    Hmmm; people who hate technology???  Hard to keep in touch then, though....


----------



## SeaBreeze

SifuPhil said:


> So far I've come up with:
> 
> 
> *Tuna Helpers* - for fishermen
> *Lick It!* - for stamp collectors
> *Home, Alone and Deranged* - for cowboys



Okay, let me know if I've crossed the line here...

*Forget-Me-Nots *- for those with memory issues
*Tweety Pies *- for bird watchers
*Hot Pockets *- for pickpockets and panhandlers
*EEwww For Me *- for germaphobes


----------



## Ozarkgal

*Phil*:





> I would also think that many farmers now have no problem with modern technology. If that were not so then they wouldn't need the dating service since they'd still be marrying their sisters, which of course is only legal in certain parts of the Southern Ozarks ...



OOOhhhh, just caught that..and I resemble that remark!

How about *Hillbilly Honeys *or *Dateyerkin*


----------



## SifuPhil

SeaBreeze said:


> Okay, let me know if I've crossed the line here...
> 
> *Forget-Me-Nots *- for those with memory issues
> *Tweety Pies *- for bird watchers
> *Hot Pockets *- for pickpockets and panhandlers
> *EEwww For Me *- for germaphobes



LMAO!

*Pee-Daddy.com*: Incontinent Dating
*In-Continents.com:* Incontinent World Traveler Dating
*Sock-Sex.com:* for those collecting Social Security checks (Soc. Secs.)
*HelloDolly.com:* for fans of lifelike love dolls
*GetOffMyLawn.com:* dating site for cranky old men
*GetOffMe.com:* dating site for cranky old women
*RubberLeggers.com:* dating site for dogs in heat

No, you haven't crossed the line ... 




Ozarkgal said:


> *Phil*:
> 
> OOOhhhh, just caught that..and I resemble that remark!
> 
> How about *Hillbilly Honeys *or *Dateyerkin*



I LOVE *DateYerKin.com*! And it's available too!

This might be The One! 

*DateYerKin.com* - 
 *Brothers and Sisters More Fun Than Those Twisters!*
 *Sisters and Brothers To Fathers and Mothers*
 *It Ain't No Sin To Date Yer Kin!*
*If You Don't Want To Fail Her, Take Her Back To Yer Trailer*

Oh, yeah - the possibilities spread out before me like a ... well, they spread out. 



*ETA:* There - I got a rough draft of the website in place - *DateYerKin.com*.  Let me know what y'all think!


----------



## Pappy

Great you guys. Love it. Wish I could think of some, but too damn early. Hey, that's it.......

Too Damn Early.com      :stop:


----------



## Amethyst1

A farmer is a man outstanding in his field!


----------



## Pappy

How about.....scarecrowsareus.com ?

JohnDeereHead.com


----------



## TICA

Anne said:


> Bus enthusiasts; LOL  Does anyone really like travelling on a bus??  Horrors!!!..



Hey!!! I resent that!  I really had an old school bus that I drove from British Columbia to the Maritime Provinces in the 90's with 3 teenagers.  Now that was a trip!   We took the seats out, bolted down a table and some plywood beds, put some air mattresses on them and hit the road.  Took three months but we saw a lot of Canada.  The only Province we didn't go to was Newfoundland and that was only because the ferry charged by the foot.   :lofl:

Sorry, got a bit off topic there!


----------



## Anne

TICA said:


> Hey!!! I resent that!  I really had an old school bus that I drove from British Columbia to the Maritime Provinces in the 90's with 3 teenagers.  Now that was a trip!   We took the seats out, bolted down a table and some plywood beds, put some air mattresses on them and hit the road.  Took three months but we saw a lot of Canada.  The only Province we didn't go to was Newfoundland and that was only because the ferry charged by the foot.   :lofl:
> 
> Sorry, got a bit off topic there!


.

ok, now that would be a blast!!!!  By busses, I mean Greyhound....wasn't fun in my younger days, and sure hasn't gotten any better......


----------



## SeaBreeze

...for ghosts...http://www.odditycentral.com/funny/ghost-singles-is-a-real-life-dating-site-for-ghosts.html


----------



## SifuPhil

SeaBreeze said:


> ...for ghosts...http://www.odditycentral.com/funny/ghost-singles-is-a-real-life-dating-site-for-ghosts.html



Wow.

I've heard that's a pretty dead site, but I guess their spirit is is the right place. 

I think a lot of my last few years of dates were ghosts - I saw them only once, then I never saw them again.


----------



## Diwundrin

:lofl:

Ooooo the opportunities that opens up for a harmless 'trolling' session.  




Post a really old photo and tell 'em you died young is the most tempting benefit. 



Bookmarked that for a cruise through some of their other weirdly interesting stuff later.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> :lofl:
> 
> Ooooo the opportunities that opens up for a harmless 'trolling' session.



Right? 

My ectoplasm is dripping just _thinking_ about the possibilities! Casper the Friendly Ghost is probably the John Holmes of that place ...


----------



## SifuPhil

*Adult Cat Finder *


----------



## Diwundrin

Oh geeze Phil, tell me that site's not one of those 'Furries' fetish things .... it gets too damned hot down here for the gear.
The only 'furry-cos' cool enough to wear would the Playboy Bunny rig and I'm too old now for that sh*t. :rofl:


----------



## Katybug

I heard an engaged couple recently being interviewed on TV who had met on-line, on a website focused on rural living. I don't think it was this particular website tho.  Both had been raised on farms and knew no other type life, and were determined to continue their lives as they had known it.  

It's not for me, I've been way too spoiled to conveniences, but am convinced those who go that route live longer.  IMO, it would be extremely hard work living off the land, but it's been done for centuries.


----------



## JustBonee

Katybug said:


> It's not for me, I've been way too spoiled to conveniences, but am convinced those who go that route live longer.  IMO, it would be extremely hard work living off the land, but it's been done for centuries.



I wonder if farmers really live longer these days ... it's become a stress filled life today. Between weather challenges in the 2000's,  and commercial farming taking over,  making a go of it is a major challenge for the little guy. .  it's probably more hobby and less life existence today.


----------



## Diwundrin

Most I know have regular jobs, and/or their wives do, to keep the farms going,too  hard to make a living off a smallish holding alone these days.


----------



## SifuPhil

What about a self-sufficient, homestead-type farm? 

Those are the types I always dreamed of running, fueled mainly by articles in _Mother Earth News_ and _Backwoods Home_ magazines. You grow only enough for the family members, perhaps a little extra to barter or sell. In this plan you'd also keep goats for milk, chickens for eggs and hogs for pork. Maybe one or two cows, but those were often seen as optional.

You could get by on 5 acres, or so they said. No massive landholdings, no huge equipment investments. A small beat-up tractor was your sole investment in capital equipment, everything else being made or improvised on the fly as needed. They were also big on "side" efforts - beekeeping, aquaculture, things like that, all of which could take up a full-time schedule if they take off. 

It wasn't seen as a business - it was deemed a lifestyle. Instead of going off to work in a cubical all day you went off to the garden and to tend the critters. That was your "job". You weren't selling as much as you were just making food for you and yours.


----------



## Diwundrin

Spoken like a true anarchist Phil.  There are indeed families who still live like that, aaand we still call them 'hippies'.



They tend to produce clueless kids who when they have to go out into the world are 'prey'. They dwell in welfare queues.
 The joys of smug self suffiency and being at one with nature won't qualify them for a job much above roustabout in someone else's plant nursery.

To be entirely self sufficient in today's society means living a far lower level lifestyle than the norm and is that fair on the offspring?  Education is compulsory, the kids are either home schooled by equally clueless parents, or go to school with others who have access to all the goodies the 'hippy' kids parents can't afford to offer them.   Fine for the adults who choose that way of life but not every child will see the lifestyle as wonderful and resentment results.

 Eventually the farm can't support the extended family and someone has to go and fend for themselves.  Land good enough to support a family is expensive.  Where do the kids get the money to buy another farm?  They can't even afford internet connection and mobile/cell phones are too expensive for their income from selling apples and eggs to passing tourists to support.  Imagine a kid looking for work these days who doesn't even know how to text? 

They have to go out and work for da man to make a dollar and they're doing it from a handicapped position.  Networking, old school tie connections, technology nous, peer communication etc that can form a large part of what career a child achieves is denied to them.  The world they grew up in doesn't give them a hint of how life is in the business world.  There are only so many positions open for landscapers and field hands and they don't pay enough to buy a farm that's a certainty.

Technology is expensive, just fitting into society is expensive. I see it as selfish of 'hippy' parents who feel that merely feeding the kids and expecting that being at one with nature  is enough these days.  It really isn't.


----------



## Anne

Much as I hate to say it, Di is right - these days kids 'need' their electronics; don't exactly love to work, and would find it nearly impossible to get a job, regardless of how hard they work.   Years ago, employers were glad to hire farm kids for their work ethic, but I know few adults who are hard workers these days; let alone kids.  The world has changed from what we knew, and it's not coming back, far as I can see.

I don't see them as 'backwards' or 'clueless' by any means; I don't see city people as being able to survive if the grocery stores closed down; what on earth would they eat??  Those hippy farmers could beat just about any city dweller in basic survival, for sure.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> Spoken like a true anarchist Phil.  There are indeed families who still live like that, aaand we still call them 'hippies'.
> 
> 
> 
> They tend to produce clueless kids who when they have to go out into the world are 'prey'. They dwell in welfare queues.
> The joys of smug self suffiency and being at one with nature won't qualify them for a job much above roustabout in someone else's plant nursery.
> 
> To be entirely self sufficient in today's society means living a far lower level lifestyle than the norm and is that fair on the offspring?  Education is compulsory, the kids are either home schooled by equally clueless parents, or go to school with others who have access to all the goodies the 'hippy' kids parents can't afford to offer them.   Fine for the adults who choose that way of life but not every child will see the lifestyle as wonderful and resentment results.
> 
> Eventually the farm can't support the extended family and someone has to go and fend for themselves.  Land good enough to support a family is expensive.  Where do the kids get the money to buy another farm?  They can't even afford internet connection and mobile/cell phones are too expensive for their income from selling apples and eggs to passing tourists to support.  Imagine a kid looking for work these days who doesn't even know how to text?
> 
> They have to go out and work for da man to make a dollar and they're doing it from a handicapped position.  Networking, old school tie connections, technology no, peer communication etc that can form a large part of what career a child achieves is denied to them.  The world they grew up in doesn't give them a hint of how life is in the business world.  There are only so many positions open for landscapers and field hands and they don't pay enough to buy a farm that's a certainty.
> 
> Technology is expensive, just fitting into society is expensive. I see it as selfish of 'hippy' parents who feel that merely feeding the kids and expecting that being at one with nature  is enough these days.  It really isn't.




That wins the *Mr. Philstivus Award for Stereotyping*! I cannot say that I've ever seen a more deserving recipient ...

I mean, seriously? You truly believe that in order to be in tune with Nature you are relegated to being a Luddite? You think because you live on a few acres outside of town you aren't allowed to have Internet or cable TV, or have the intelligence to read an occasional newspaper? You think anarchy means choosing to live outside the insanity? 

Home-schooling? Over here the "teacher" has to pass rigorous screening and certification before they can teach. And were you aware that now you can go all the way to getting your PhD totally online? And this from accredited universities, not bogus back-room "online colleges". I doubt that any child raised in a self-sufficient family would ever go wanting for work, whether on the family homestead or in the "outside" world, unless they wanted to. Self-sufficiency isn't just about putting up some canned veggies - it's about adaptation, preparedness and self-knowledge. 

The only folks I know who "dwell in welfare queues" are either those who have lost their "workin' for da man" jobs and/or their homes because of the economy (i.e., they couldn't afford to FEED THEIR FAMILIES because of the shifts of society's moods), or they were merely the latest iteration of a multi-generational welfare dynasty (i.e., they are shiftless bastards). 

And it has nothing to do with being smug - it's about getting away from the crazies and not being dependent upon the government to suckle you from cradle to grave. Someone (MercyL?) just posted a thread here on how one country is proposing giving every adult $2,800 per month, basically for just_ existing_. Do you realize how indebted one would become, so addicted to that father-figure support, that you would figuratively never move out of their basement? Do you realize how mentally crippling, how soul-scarring that would be? 

That's no kind of life to live. But when you choose to play the usual life-games that's where you're going to end up - in your Mommy's and Daddy's big safe arms, and they'll only occasionally take a rectal temperature, feed you castor oil and spank you. 

All for your own good, of course.  

I think your model is from the '60's, which I can't fault because that's when it became the "in" thing to do - tune in, turn on and drop out and all that rot. I'm talking about sane, well-planned self-sufficiency, not flavor-of-the-week sheeple following the crowd. I'm talking about history - about families providing for themselves without the aid of the Federal or business-world teat.

I have known several souls who lived the minimalist life - they were far from being the unaware, socially-awkward type you seem to want to portray. In fact they would have given Plato, Socrates and Einstein a run for their money while at the same time partying hard in the latest club. 

You can know _of_ a thing without being _part of_ that thing. 

I'm disappointed, Di - I thought you were better than this. C'mon - show me you're really the deep thinker I know you are.


----------



## SifuPhil

Anne said:


> Much as I hate to say it, Di is right - these days kids 'need' their electronics; don't exactly love to work, and would find it nearly impossible to get a job, regardless of how hard they work.   Years ago, employers were glad to hire farm kids for their work ethic, but I know few adults who are hard workers these days; let alone kids.  The world has changed from what we knew, and it's not coming back, far as I can see.
> 
> I don't see them as 'backwards' or 'clueless' by any means; I don't see city people as being able to survive if the grocery stores closed down; what on earth would they eat??  Those hippy farmers could beat just about any city dweller in basic survival, for sure.



I think you're equating societal failures with self-sufficient living - two TOTALLY different topics.

Kids do not NEED their electronics - they are brainwashed by their peers and the media to THINK they need them, but in fact they only WANT them.

Kids growing up on a homestead with proper parenting would be no strangers to hard work. That work ethic would stand them in good stead for whatever life later throws at them, unlike the mother in Chicago that just confronted the CEO of McDonald's that she should be making $15 an hour because she's been there for 10 years and she has 2 kids. That's not a work ethic - a work ethic would have been moving on to a job that deserved higher pay, and not expecting others to pay for your inability to keep your legs closed.

I think there will always be those few who have the strength of character to resist the siren-call of society's marketing mavens. They will be the survivors, and when everyone else is on the welfare line and waiting breathlessly for their government to support them they'll be out doing what they have to do - and are USED to doing - in order to survive.

I agree that country folk have a lot more down-home wisdom about growing their own than city folk - a definite advantage when things get tight.


----------



## Diwundrin

You are still thinking idealistically Phil.  You're viewing things from the city perspective and from how things are with people you know.  Minimalist in the city is different from minimalist in the scrub.  I knew a couple like that too, but they weren't inflicting their spartan lifestyle on their children. They didn't have any. 

I'm also viewing from personal experience.  Not far from the town I moved from was an area of said 'self sustainers' and it was redneck central down there.  If your car broke down you could buy the wheels back from the nearest farm. Most have never heard of Socrates and the kids are 'out of the loop' and only come into town to go to school and fight with the 'haves.'

They aren't all mental giants with heads full of philosophy, many are the following generations of the 60s dopehead dropouts who don't know any better way to make a living.  They don't qualify to home school because they barely made it past kindergarten themselves.  Their kids don't all come out with PhDs either, many get through the system unable to read without moving their lips.  Don't 'generalise' that all those bucolic self sustainers are philosophers. Most of their epiphanies occur while testing the efficacy of the latest 'crop'.

Bear in mind too that our welfare system is far more generous and easier to access than yours.  These people get all kinds of family support, 'baby bonus' payments and exemptions from land taxes if the farm is small enough and derives no income.  Yet they still can't afford to support mobile phone bills and internet costs, if they are even able to connect to it.  Many don't even have the power connected because it can cost around 10 to 20 grand to get lines in from the road to where some of them live.  They can't afford massive solar panels to power more than a fridge and a TV and even fuel for the generators costs heaps here.  Those with big families live from the welfare, not from what the farm produces, and that's a great grounding for the kids to grow up with too isn't it?

The honestly self sustaining turn out kids who have learned little else but how to milk a cow and to do without what everyone else has.
The welfare reliant ones turn theirs out with a welfare entitlement attitude and no prospect of being any more benefit to society than their parents.  How is living off a farm a great option again????

Yes it's generalizing but there's enough of both those types to make one seriously suspicious of that lifestyle being much more than a self indulgence of the non competitive. 

Do you really think that most small farmers, including several of my relatives, take on jobs for the fun of it?  They'd love to live that 1890s lifestyle, but necessity to keep machinery maintained, the kids dressed and educated decently, the fencing to stay standing, and the land out of the hands of the banks keeps them working.  The properties they have are largely pastoral and livestock based.  The land isn't good enough for cropping and it's cheaper to buy a box of vegies than for one of them to stay home and dig weeds instead of making a salary.

There is also a difference in availability of good farmland.  Sure there are little patches that accommodate that lifestyle, but they cost. Growing enough to eat isn't enough, you can't grow jeans and boots and tractors and fuel. They can't grow the money to buy a vehicle or to pay for it's registration costs.   To produce saleable product for cash income requires more good land for more crop, or machinery for making cheese or whatever their niche is, and the means to market it.

In essence you need money to buy a lifestyle that doesn't require money.

Thanks for that award btw, they're flying thick and fast around here.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> You are still thinking idealistically Phil.  You're viewing things from the city perspective and from how things are with people you know.  Minimalist in the city is different from minimalist in the scrub.  I knew a couple like that too, but they weren't inflicting their spartan lifestyle on their children. They didn't have any.



But you don't KNOW who I know - whether they are from the city, the country or a mix. They are in fact the latter. 



> I'm also viewing from personal experience.  Not far from the town I moved from was an area of said 'self sustainers' and it was redneck central down there.  If your car broke down you could buy the wheels back from the nearest farm. Most have never heard of Socrates and the kids are 'out of the loop' and only come into town to go to school and fight with the 'haves.'



I've known rednecks as well, but that isn't what I'm talking about. 



> They aren't all mental giants with heads full of philosophy, many are the following generations of the 60s dopehead dropouts who don't know any better way to make a living.  They don't qualify to home school because they barely made it past kindergarten themselves.  Their kids don't all come out with PhDs either, many get through the system unable to read without moving their lips.  Don't 'generalise' that all those bucolic self sustainers are philosophers. Most of their epiphanies occur while testing the efficacy of the latest 'crop'.



Aside from the fact that any serious "crop" grower isn't going to be getting zonked on their own supply to the point where they are comatose, once again I'm not referring to the aging bell-bottom set nor to the "We can't make it in the city so let's go to the country" crowd. 



> Bear in mind too that our welfare system is far more generous and easier to access than yours.



Please excuse me a moment while I wipe away the tears of laughter. 



> These people get all kinds of family support, 'baby bonus' payments and exemptions from land taxes if the farm is small enough and derives no income.  Yet they still can't afford to support mobile phone bills and internet costs, if they are even able to connect to it.  Many don't even have the power connected because it can cost around 10 to 20 grand to get lines in from the road to where some of them live.  They can't afford massive solar panels to power more than a fridge and a TV and even fuel for the generators costs heaps here.  Those with big families live from the welfare, not from what the farm produces, and that's a great grounding for the kids to grow up with too isn't it?



There is something seriously wrong when you're getting hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and various other assistance - food, insurance, medical, dental, prescriptions, etc. - and cannot afford $20/mn for phone and $30 for 'Net. 

The removal from utilities is perhaps endemic to YOUR area. We have similar places but in general I'm talking about a homestead that is either totally off-the-grid or within the present service-area radius. I'm also talking about self-sufficiency, where you don't accept government assistance - you're talking about welfare cases with hay in their hair. Big difference.



> The honestly self sustaining turn out kids who have learned little else but how to milk a cow and to do without what everyone else has.
> The welfare reliant ones turn theirs out with a welfare entitlement attitude and no prospect of being any more benefit to society than their parents.  How is living off a farm a great option again????



Once again - I'm talking about a _homestead_, not a _farm_. Not a farm the way I believe you're thinking of one. This isn't hundreds or thousands of acres - this is 5-10 acres, and the goal is self-sufficiency, not profit. 



> Yes it's generalizing but there's enough of both those types to make one seriously suspicious of that lifestyle being much more than a self indulgence of the non competitive.



Right ... like competitiveness is a desirable trait. How many problems in the world are due to over-competitiveness? It leads to lying, cheating, stealing - all in the name of "winning".

If that's what it takes to win then just call me The Biggest Loser.



> Do you really think that most small farmers, including several of my relatives, take on jobs for the fun of it?  They'd love to live that 1890s lifestyle, but necessity to keep machinery maintained, the kids dressed and educated decently, the fencing to stay standing, and the land out of the hands of the banks keeps them working.  The properties they have are largely pastoral and livestock based.  The land isn't good enough for cropping and it's cheaper to buy a box of vegies than for one of them to stay home and dig weeds instead of making a salary.



Machinery ... I'm saying one used tractor, not combines and threshers and automatic sheep shearers. The banks don't enter into it because you have bought the land outright - once again, not being in debt to anyone. The fertility of the land is a problem anywhere, granted, but one that can and should be solved before even thinking about moving in.



> There is also a difference in availability of good farmland.  Sure there are little patches that accommodate that lifestyle, but they cost. Growing enough to eat isn't enough, you can't grow jeans and boots and tractors and fuel. They can't grow the money to buy a vehicle or to pay for it's registration costs.   To produce saleable product for cash income requires more good land for more crop, or machinery for making cheese or whatever their niche is, and the means to market it.



Keeping one's wants and needs separate and living a minimal yet fulfilling lifestyle is possible, very possible. Just because people go out and blow their wad on the newest model FartFire V-8 doesn't mean we have to. Clothes? How many pairs of boots can you wear at once? Think of all the commuting costs and clothing costs and dining costs that will be saved by not living in the competitive world. You'll be eating simply and healthily at little cost. 

Not thousand-acre corporate-owned farms; little Mom-and-Pop homesteads. 



> In essence you need money to buy a lifestyle that doesn't require money.



Perhaps in the beginning, yes. But if you're clever and persistent - but not too competitive - at least over here you can still score a few acres for under the price of that new FartFire. Which investment is going to last AND return a living? 



> Thanks for that award btw, they're flying thick and fast around here.



I think I've found a new niche market.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Sifu, I am SO with you on this one. I have no clue how things are in Di's part of the world, but here in America, that old style hippy life is pretty well gone now, more of communities working together, than communes.
Todays peppers are sharp sighted former CEOs who have moved from the city to the country, sold the big rancher or tri-level home in the suburbs, and bought a piece of land with a barn, and maybe a house out in the hills somewhere. 
They have studied the homesteading lore and crafts, and are using their savings to put in solar power or similar things. 
Just look at George Ure, from Urban Survival. He is a fine example of a modern homesteader/prepped, and I enjoy reading his column, www.urbansurvival.com .

Of course, not all of us were the  CEO of a company,and there are plenty of regular people living that life on a few acres, and milking their goats, and selling homemade soap from the goat milk, bringing in the firewood with the old Ford 9N.I think half of north Idaho lives that way.
I had a little trailer, chickens, rabbits, milk goat, and my dogs and even a llama. At first I had a Lister diesel generator, but I was not cut out for that, and got electricity, and sold the generator to a fellow that understood machinery. I hauled water in 55 gallon drums, in the back of my Mazda pickup, and melted snow in the bathtub in the winter for water.  
Even if you are not totally self-sufficient, every little bit you do to take care of yourself and be independent is a good move.
Homesteading is not for everyone, but it is doable, and being done by people from all walks of life.


----------



## Diwundrin

Phil,
You are arguing from view of how it theoretically should/might work, in the right circumstances, in a suitable situation, and with the right minded people who are affecting no-one's lives but their own.  That seems to be the viewpoint of the anti-government philosophy.
Simply imagine the wished for scenario and then attempt to conjure up ways to make the theory fit.  It doesn't fit.  You'd have to the change the world around it to make it fit.  It's possible for some perhaps, but rarely happens.

I'm arguing from the viewpoint of how the world really works on small, 10 to 500 acre properties... here. 
 Other than a retired couple on the pension or welfare feeders, small time agricultural pursuits don't work all that well.  We have 10% of your population and of that not much of it lives outside the cities.  Not a lot of  scope for making money from passing traffic if there's only 3 cars a day other than locals doing the trip.  Getting the produce to market can cost more in fuel than it's worth, but that's nitpicking, I do that a lot.

I dropped out of the 'competition' too, I was lucky enough to be able to afford to.  I, like you have no one relying on me to feed them.  But had I had kids who needed to go to University and required the techno trappings of life to give them an even chance in life then I'd have taken another tack.  

What started this is your shock horror that someone on the land should also have a job 'in town' as though that is a failing or something. 
 I see it as a responsible way of keeping the land in family hands to pass down to any of the kids who wants that life while still giving them all the options for other careers available to their peers.  If *they* so choose to go that way!  Being virtuously poor and philosophically 'free' may not seem tempting to a budding entrepreneur.  

 My argument is simply that parents need to think deeply about how poor they want their kids to be unnecessarily and about what options they might be depriving them of.  What's fine for Mum and Dad isn't always what their children want.  If they do want to 'compete', and they do want that Firefart then they should be given every opportunity to learn how to go about getting it.  Keepin' 'em down on the farm isn't giving them street smarts. 

 Having to be home in time for farm chores isn't giving them the time to keep up with the social networking of their peers.  I know, and agree, that is a horrible world out there, and one I don't want to live in either, but it IS the world they are being raised to survive in.  It ain't 1890 any more.

Those I refer to with jobs and farms have kids who are indeed up to speed with their peers despite their relative isolation.  'Hippies' kids are not. 
 Being a dirt poor, welfare sucking, while still claiming to have the right to be living a 'new age' sustainable lifestyle as a shining example to society in general doesn't cut it for me.  Sorry.  But really you are envisioning people who already have money, are simply hobby farmers, livin' the dream but with no real world responsibilities right?  Plenty of them around but they're only playing at it. 

Guess who our biggest contributors are to the suicide figures here?  Yep, small time farmers. That is, the ones who are trying to make a living solely from their own properties and not coping with being the generation that can't keep it viable any more.

We have a bit of a translation problem going on too.  A 'homestead' here usually refers to the owners house located somewhere on a 'Station' (ranch) of something between 50,000 to a million acres with half a day's drive to the front gate.  It is usually a small village unto itself with workers houses and repair shops on site.

Lesser acreages are referred to as 'Properties', as in a cattle Property etc., of a few hundred to a few thousand acres, and smaller ones still as farms whatever they produce.  

It gets more complicated as you can have a Sheep or Cattle Station, but not a Wheat Station.  Even if you grow crops from horizon to horizon you're still just a 'Grower' on a ...name your crop...' Property.' 



Then you have places like Cubby Station that used to be into cattle and since switched to growing cotton resulting in explosive angsty spit fights in parliarment and the media,  but is still referred to by the old name of Station, even though it no longer applies.

So as you can see we are arguing apples and oranges here.  I know that the self sustainers you laud are viewed with contempt as 'hobby farmers' by those who consider themselves 'real' people of the land who have to work in mines or wherever to keep the wolf from the door and the title deeds within the family.  
It's a matter of viewpoint isn't it? 



I'm not sure what you're tearing up about at the mention of welfare.  Some of those big families on welfare can get thousands$$ a week!   ... and yes, you're right they don't qualify as 'sustainable farmers' really, they just sprang to mind because whatever they spend it on it sure isn't their kids.

Here's the link to our Welfare benefits.  Enjoy!   ... and give me a heads up when you intend emmigrating, I'll buy some decent coffee.



http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services/

btw: the exchange rates don't make a lot of difference, until 2 months or so ago our dollar was worth more than yours.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> Phil,
> You are arguing from view of how it theoretically should/might work, in the right circumstances, in a suitable situation, and with the right minded people who are affecting no-one's lives but their own.  That seems to be the viewpoint of the anti-government philosophy.



Not necessarily "anti-government" - just _less_ government, government that does only what it was originally _intended_ to do.



> Simply imagine the wished for scenario and then attempt to conjure up ways to make the theory fit.  It doesn't fit.  You'd have to the change the world around it to make it fit.  It's possible for some perhaps, but rarely happens.



I've seen many listings of homesteads that are successful, on-going affairs. I don't have the energy to chase down the links right now but I'll try to in the morning.



> I'm arguing from the viewpoint of how the world really works on small, 10 to 500 acre properties... here.
> Other than a retired couple on the pension or welfare feeders, small time agricultural pursuits don't work all that well.  We have 10% of your population and of that not much of it lives outside the cities.  Not a lot of  scope for making money from passing traffic if there's only 3 cars a day other than locals doing the trip.  Getting the produce to market can cost more in fuel than it's worth, but that's nitpicking, I do that a lot.



Your 10 to 500 acres is outside of what I'm thinking of, but you explain that later. 



> I dropped out of the 'competition' too, I was lucky enough to be able to afford to.  I, like you have no one relying on me to feed them.  But had I had kids who needed to go to University and required the techno trappings of life to give them an even chance in life then I'd have taken another tack.



I've owned many small businesses in the martial arts / Chinese medicine field - "many" meaning 9 - and most of them were during the years when I was married with children, so I did have a family to support. I was never a "competitive" teacher / practitioner - I relied upon word-of-mouth and publications to bring in business. Besides, how could anyone hope to compete with ME? I'm a unique individual with a unique way of teaching / healing - there's no one else like me when it comes to those two things, so even mentioning the word "competition" in that regard is ludicrous.

Yet I was able to provide quite well for my family, and am still living off the proceeds of what I did years ago. All without competing.



> What started this is your shock horror that someone on the land should also have a job 'in town' as though that is a failing or something.
> I see it as a responsible way of keeping the land in family hands to pass down to any of the kids who wants that life while still giving them all the options for other careers available to their peers.  If *they* so choose to go that way!  Being virtuously poor and philosophically 'free' may not seem tempting to a budding entrepreneur.



I wouldn't say it was "shock horror" at all. I know it's a common practice. But again you're referring to large operations, very different than my little slices of Heaven.



> My argument is simply that parents need to think deeply about how poor they want their kids to be unnecessarily and about what options they might be depriving them of.  What's fine for Mum and Dad isn't always what their children want.  If they do want to 'compete', and they do want that Firefart then they should be given every opportunity to learn how to go about getting it.  Keepin' 'em down on the farm isn't giving them street smarts.



So only a city-person can have street smarts? 



> Having to be home in time for farm chores isn't giving them the time to keep up with the social networking of their peers.  I know, and agree, that is a horrible world out there, and one I don't want to live in either, but it IS the world they are being raised to survive in.  It ain't 1890 any more.



And what of the kids that have to run to their city home right after school to take care of the siblings while their single Mom goes off to work the evening shift at McDonald's? How is THAT any healthier? 



> Those I refer to with jobs and farms have kids who are indeed up to speed with their peers despite their relative isolation.  'Hippies' kids are not.
> Being a dirt poor, welfare sucking, while still claiming to have the right to be living a 'new age' sustainable lifestyle as a shining example to society in general doesn't cut it for me.  Sorry.  But really you are envisioning people who already have money, are simply hobby farmers, livin' the dream but with no real world responsibilities right?  Plenty of them around but they're only playing at it.



The idea of a self-reliant, self-sustaining lifestyle is a far cry from hobby farming or "playing at it". Actually, growing veggies and such is just a very small part of the overall operation. It doesn;t take truckloads of money - just brains and desire. 



> Guess who our biggest contributors are to the suicide figures here?  Yep, small time farmers. That is, the ones who are trying to make a living solely from their own properties and not coping with being the generation that can't keep it viable any more.



If I were trying to farm under what I'm beginning to learn YOUR environmental conditions are then I'd probably be throwing myself under the tractor as well. 



> We have a bit of a translation problem going on too.  A 'homestead' here usually refers to the owners house located somewhere on a 'Station' (ranch) of something between 50,000 to a million acres with half a day's drive to the front gate.  It is usually a small village unto itself with workers houses and repair shops on site.
> 
> Lesser acreages are referred to as 'Properties', as in a cattle Property etc., of a few hundred to a few thousand acres, and smaller ones still as farms whatever they produce.
> 
> It gets more complicated as you can have a Sheep or Cattle Station, but not a Wheat Station.  Even if you grow crops from horizon to horizon you're still just a 'Grower' on a ...name your crop...' Property.'
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have places like Cubby Station that used to be into cattle and since switched to growing cotton resulting in explosive angsty spit fights in parliarment and the media,  but is still referred to by the old name of Station, even though it no longer applies.



This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. I always did wonder what a "station" was - thank you for enlightening me. 



> So as you can see we are arguing apples and oranges here.  I know that the self sustainers you laud are viewed with contempt as 'hobby farmers' by those who consider themselves 'real' people of the land who have to work in mines or wherever to keep the wolf from the door and the title deeds within the family.
> It's a matter of viewpoint isn't it?



It is. That's why I just consider this a spirited exchange between two crazy people, not a debate or argument. :biggrin-new:



> I'm not sure what you're tearing up about at the mention of welfare.  Some of those big families on welfare can get thousands$$ a week!   ... and yes, you're right they don't qualify as 'sustainable farmers' really, they just sprang to mind because whatever they spend it on it sure isn't their kids.
> 
> Here's the link to our Welfare benefits.  Enjoy!   ... and give me a heads up when you intend emmigrating, I'll buy some decent coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services/
> 
> btw: the exchange rates don't make a lot of difference, until 2 months or so ago our dollar was worth more than yours.



THOUSANDS?!? 

I was tearing up because our stereotypical idea of urban welfare cases are big shiny new cars parked in front of their Section 8 housing (welfare) whose trunks are filled with bags of groceries paid for by welfare. They carry the bags inside and sit down to watch their 72" dia. plasma-screen TV with the satellite service that offers 500 channels while smoothing out their $100 designer sweat shirt and $200 designer jeans. 

They also seem to get the best weed, damn their souls. 

That link is going to be like reading the Bible (for length, not for content), but when I get a chance I'd really like to look up the welfare stuff.


----------



## Diwundrin

> It is. That's why I just consider this a spirited exchange between two crazy people, not a debate or argument. :biggrin-new:



"Everyone's crazy but me and thee and I'm none too sure about thee" ???  that one? 

:thumbsup:


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> "Everyone's crazy but me and thee and I'm none too sure about thee" ???  that one?
> 
> :thumbsup:



That's the one!

This may weaken my argument, being as it is in such a notoriously "hippie" magazine, but _Mother Earth News_ did a lot of articles fairly recently (2011) on homesteading - here's their *Start A 1-Acre, Self-Sufficient Homestead* article to illustrate a bit more where my thinking is at.


----------



## Diwundrin

OH! That is soooo cute! 






I dare say there would be places where an acre would support that bucolic pipedream...  in Tasmania mostly.  It rains in some sort of regular pattern down there.



There are quite a lot of people who moved to Tassie to live that lifestyle.  It is now the basket case State that the rest of the country supports because it's industry is dying and most of them are unemployed and on the dole.  The Greens ruled down there until those still with a spark of self preservation voted them out a few weeks ago.  Their main industry was apples and forrestry timber processing but the Greens pulled that plug and all the supporting jobs and industries went down the tubes.

Even in Tassie there are only so many one acre plots that could support a family. Presuming that there are many left who really think that slogging away dawn to dusk is a preferable way to make a living than working 8hrs, stocking up at the supermarket on the way home, then putting your feet up with a beer to watch the footy.

I was just imagining the crapfight on the mainland if all of us needed an acre of prime soil in an area with a reasonable climate and a water supply to support our families on.
 Good luck with finding around 8-10 million acres of that to go around. 

 
We'd run out of bread and meat real fast because that is the kind of land that supports the population en masse.  Break that up into one acre lots and we are out of business.  The good land is taken.

Some may have seen a set up like that illustration somewhere, but I never have.  I'm sorry but I burst out laughing when I saw that tiny little paddock with a couple of dairy cows in it. And the pigs within whiffing range of the kitchen door.  And  you could grow enough hay in that handkerchief size field to feed livestock  long term? :rofl:
That green paddock in the illustration would be brown dust in two days with cattle walking about on it so you're gonna need an awful lot of hay to feed them on.  Cheaper and easier to buy a carton of milk isn't it?

We don't calculate land quality by head of livestock per acre here, we calculate hectares per head of livestock. In some places sq.kilometres per head.

That illustration of a 'homestead' set up is the stuff of Enid Blyton to us.  You won't buy that dream for much under a million bucks, and that probably won't include the 'mansion' pictured.  One acre lots here aren't done as 'farms', they're done as high end low density dwelling developments, and cost a bomb!   The smallest hobby farm development I've seen is 5 acre lots and the land was only fit to support an alpaca and a chook run.

Sorry... I'm just having a bit of dark side, cynical fun with this, I know it's only a lifestyle preferred by the very few, or even contemplated by the idealistically deluded. 



It took months to get the message across to an American on another forum that we don't have the nationwide infrastructure here that you do because we don't have the population to make it profitable.  And we don't have the population in the middle of the country because it simply can't support them.   We all tend to judge the viability of theories and dreams against what we're raised with and used to. 

 We don't have your good soil on those vast prairies to farm.  We have an inland like the Nullabor.
What you see as normal farmland we see as prime pieces of paradise.
Your forebears were luckier than ours in what part of the world they landed on.

 You get a taste of drought now and then, but they are more the norm here than good years are.   We aren't the leading experts on dry-land wheat farming for nothing.  We can't afford to waste good arable land on wheat and we can't rely on rain.  
Most of our fruit etc is grown in high intensity irrigation areas.  That too is taking it's toll in altering the ground water levels and leaching minerals and salts to the surface.   

OZ is almost the same size as the mainland US with under 10% the population, but with something like 5% of the arable land and a tiny fraction of the available water supply. 
 We don't do rivers well here.  Even the biggest, the Murray, gets too low to float a boat on sometimes.
  Many are bone dry for years at a time until the floods come.  How well would America had fared had the Mississippi just usually trickled along except when it was in flood?

That Cubby Station I mentioned earlier?  When it switched to growing cotton it sucked all the water out of the catchment rivers of the 2nd biggest river, which in turn feeds the biggest.  That's what the fight was over. *One* big cotton plantation was sucking the life out of all the other properties further downstream for thousands of kilometres.
Farming can get damned hard here.


----------



## SifuPhil

Cute? CUTE ?!? 

:lofl:


Hey, have your politicians ever considered getting away from the agriculture-based economy and getting into - oh, I don't know - maybe become a satellite manufacturing location for China and India? Evidently you have these hundreds of thousands of unemployed, uneducated people laying around collecting thousands of dollars a week on welfare - they could be trained to run the production lines in the factories, and their salaries would be far less than their unemployment benefits. 

You've got the land available for sprawling industrial parks, and it doesn't have to be arable. It won't cost you anything in development fees, because the land is a write-off as it is. 

You can thank me later.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Well, I can definitely see where the difference in land would make it a lot harder to do the self-sufficient thing over there. and there is a big difference, even here, between being a small farmer, and making a living that way; and in having a self-sufficient homestead. 
Many of the people who set out to do that lifestyle, do have a regular job somewhere, at least for the first part, until they are stabilized, and they also may have some kind of an at-home, or online way of earning extra income. 
The children either go to public school, or there are home schooling groups that work together, so the children are not as isolated as you were thinking.

As Phil said, the idea is not to become a farmer, but simply to be able to grow food for yourself/family.  We are constantly bombarded with the possibility of economic collapse, terrorist attack, or even an EMP that would shut about everything down.  There is a massive volcanic caldera under Yellowstone Park, and several other ones that are active, plus the ever present possibility of an asteroid hitting the earth. Any one of these things would stop all trucks from bringing food to the stores, close all gas stations and banks,  and there would probably be no electricity or water. It would be weeks, or even months, before any kind of help could be forthcoming. 

The only people that have any chance of making it through this kind of  disaster, are the people that have done like  the lowly ant, and prepared for an emergency, and are not dependent on the government to live and function. Even then, most of the preppers will not necessarily make it long term, but they at least have a better chance of getting through it and not starving.

You are right about the cows, they need more land to graze on; but a milk goat will provide plenty for a family, and does not require the high quality feed that a cow does. 
Pigs are not necessarily going to be practical either, but a sheep, chicken, and some rabbits will provide plenty of meat, and if the land offers deer, or other wild game, so much the better.
Even if a person is not able to totally provide for their own needs, the more independent that you can be, the better your chances are of taking care of yourself and family if even a temporary disaster should hit us.


----------



## SifuPhil

Someone who understands - _thank_ you! 

I'm well-along in my own emergency preparedness and survival planning. The backyard here is about 40'x20', and I already have livestock - one cat, one dog and a few free-range squirrels - as well as my basic tools: a pocketknife, a roll of duct tape and a Fisher-Price Musical Shovel.

*Bring on the Apocalypse! *


----------



## Diwundrin

When disaster strikes I don't plan on coping with the aftermath long term so that doesn't apply to me.  I've just been indulging in my twisted hobby of sticking pins in people's Utopian thought bubbles.  



As a disaster survival technique, that self sustainable system would have to be already up and running when it hits.
It couldn't be started from scratch in time to replace the supermarket before you starved.
The beans and taters won't grow overnight. The pens and fences take a while to build and where do you get the hardware to do them?    The livestock would be hard to procure in the aftermath of some cataclysm and you'd be too busy fighting off the other hungry desperates to have time to tend the garden anyway. 

Just sayin'....


----------



## Diwundrin

SifuPhil said:


> Cute? CUTE ?!?
> 
> :lofl:
> 
> 
> Hey, have your politicians ever considered getting away from the agriculture-based economy and getting into - oh, I don't know - maybe become a satellite manufacturing location for China and India? Evidently you have these hundreds of thousands of unemployed, uneducated people laying around collecting thousands of dollars a week on welfare - they could be trained to run the production lines in the factories, and their salaries would be far less than their unemployment benefits.
> 
> You've got the land available for sprawling industrial parks, and it doesn't have to be arable. It won't cost you anything in development fees, because the land is a write-off as it is.
> 
> You can thank me later.



Good point.  We actually had manufacturing industries. We had steelworks that have all gone cold and are being torn down because the environmentally obsessed objected to them 'polluting'.  So those industries and jobs went to S.Korea and China.
We are reduced to digging out the ore and selling it to *their* steel mills now.  ... and the Greens even want us to stop mining!  That's were most of our profits come from now.  We're not big in the agricultural trade other than beef and wheat in a good season.

We had car factories that are now pulling out, despite billions being given to them by the government in subsidies to keep them going.  They're all relocating to Asia too, cheaper workforce.  Think Detroit.

Whenever someone invents something here they invariably have to get it manufactured in Asia because we have such a high standard of wage protection, coupled with a limited market here that they can't produce it at a profit.  
Furniture manufacturers are 'catching fire' weekly.  They are just one of many small industries which can't compete with cheaper Asian products because a previous (lefty) government thought it was smart to lift the tarrifs off imports to make a 'level playing field' on trade with Asia.   WTF???  High wages here, almost no wages there, how is that levelling competition?

Those thousands of unemployed used to work in those factories, industries, and manufacturing businesses.  
A combination of Greenie tantrums and Left wing, Union owned governments have gutted this country's industries.

Too much dreamin' about Utopian conditions, and not enough attention paid to what was happening as a consequence has gone on too long.

Even the best land is being bought by Asian conglomerates and the Chinese government, so even our food won't be ours for much longer.  Try buying that acre of land from Beijing!

But dream on, envision that bucolic future if it comforts you, just don't expect that it will happen that way.

Anyone who wants to start up an industrial park in the desert here is more than welcome to try.  C'mon over. Bring your chequebook.  ... and your industrial relations and environmental legislation savvy lawyers. 

 


Give it 5 minutes, Warri will fall on this like a tonne of bricks.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> When disaster strikes I don't plan on coping with the aftermath long term so that doesn't apply to me.  I've just been indulging in my twisted hobby of sticking pins in people's Utopian thought bubbles.
> 
> 
> 
> As a disaster survival technique, that self sustainable system would have to be already up and running when it hits.
> It couldn't be started from scratch in time to replace the supermarket before you starved.
> The beans and taters won't grow overnight. The pens and fences take a while to build and where do you get the hardware to do them?    The livestock would be hard to procure in the aftermath of some cataclysm and you'd be too busy fighting off the other hungry desperates to have time to tend the garden anyway.
> 
> Just sayin'....



Well, yeah ... of course. You don't go looking for a sale on fire extinguishers once the flames have reached the wainscoting. 

(No real reason to use that word except that I've always wanted to)

As for your hobby - it's a cruel and unusual one. 

Congratulations.


----------



## Diwundrin

> As for your hobby - it's a cruel and unusual one.
> 
> Congratulations.



Thank you. It's been a source of some comforting venting and much amusement for some time now.





> wainscoting.



Indeed a word to conjure with.


----------

