not sure you can cherry pick the state with the cheapest cost of living in each aspect - not sure you can pay rent in North Dakota but pay a gas bill in Oregon
overall i think it’s fraught to use macro level stats for anything close to a normative judgement, because by virtue of being averages they will deviate a lot from most people’s lived experience. for example, national dry goods prices probably don’t reflect what a person in minot, ND can walk down to the store and buy (i don’t know anywhere that you can buy fruits or veggies for $0.43 a day)
health insurance is not free in all states, what about transportation in those rural areas? internet? how do you make the money you do need? what’s the point of this excersie?
It's a good point that you can't pay rent in North Dakota and a gas bill in Oregon. You would need to sum all the expenses and pick the location with the lowest sum.
Yes, each person's lived experience will deviate from the average. However, how does this make the exercise fraught? What would be an alternative way to conduct the exercise? Calculate the expenses for one specific individual in one location?
And an apple weights about 1/3 of a pound. That's $0.44 per apple. Just as an example. Obviously you would ideally want more variety in your fruit and vegetable diet and some are more expensive, but the point of this exercise is to calculate the bare minimum you need to survive.
I haven't done the research on whether there is a free health insurance option in every state. Transportation and internet would add to the total expenses. However, again, the point of the exercise is to calculate the bare minimum needed to survive. You can walk. You can access internet at the public library.
How do you make the money you do need? One option: work for a while, save, and then stop working when you've enough to live on for a certain amount of time. Here's how Thoreau did it: https://www.rebalancedaily.com/thoreau-how-to-make-a-living/
What’s the point of this exercise? My theory is that we are producing more than enough for everyone to survive. Once we've calculated the bare minimum that each individual needs to survive, then we can determine how much excess we are producing. If we are producing excess, this leads to more questions: Do we need to produce excess? Why? If excess production is causing negative externalities, should we stop producing excess? Should we focus our excess production energy on initiatives other than more material abundance?
not sure you can cherry pick the state with the cheapest cost of living in each aspect - not sure you can pay rent in North Dakota but pay a gas bill in Oregon
overall i think it’s fraught to use macro level stats for anything close to a normative judgement, because by virtue of being averages they will deviate a lot from most people’s lived experience. for example, national dry goods prices probably don’t reflect what a person in minot, ND can walk down to the store and buy (i don’t know anywhere that you can buy fruits or veggies for $0.43 a day)
health insurance is not free in all states, what about transportation in those rural areas? internet? how do you make the money you do need? what’s the point of this excersie?
It's a good point that you can't pay rent in North Dakota and a gas bill in Oregon. You would need to sum all the expenses and pick the location with the lowest sum.
Yes, each person's lived experience will deviate from the average. However, how does this make the exercise fraught? What would be an alternative way to conduct the exercise? Calculate the expenses for one specific individual in one location?
If the price of a pound of apples is $1.32: https://www.statista.com/statistics/236871/retail-price-of-apples-in-the-united-states/
And an apple weights about 1/3 of a pound. That's $0.44 per apple. Just as an example. Obviously you would ideally want more variety in your fruit and vegetable diet and some are more expensive, but the point of this exercise is to calculate the bare minimum you need to survive.
I haven't done the research on whether there is a free health insurance option in every state. Transportation and internet would add to the total expenses. However, again, the point of the exercise is to calculate the bare minimum needed to survive. You can walk. You can access internet at the public library.
How do you make the money you do need? One option: work for a while, save, and then stop working when you've enough to live on for a certain amount of time. Here's how Thoreau did it: https://www.rebalancedaily.com/thoreau-how-to-make-a-living/
What’s the point of this exercise? My theory is that we are producing more than enough for everyone to survive. Once we've calculated the bare minimum that each individual needs to survive, then we can determine how much excess we are producing. If we are producing excess, this leads to more questions: Do we need to produce excess? Why? If excess production is causing negative externalities, should we stop producing excess? Should we focus our excess production energy on initiatives other than more material abundance?