So index funds don't look so appealing right now! I know, I know, the market's on sale, and eventually it will go up, so if I keep dollar cost averaging, I'm bound to do fine in the end...
I get it. But I'm not sure I believe it. What's coming out now is the importance of timing the market; when TSE and the DOW closed not long ago at 8,500, that was the same (and I may not have my numbers exactly right) as it was just after the tech stock crash. In other words, if all you had done was buy index funds at the last low, and then not sold them at this most recent high, you're merely back where you started. And, yes, it might go up, and yes, your index funds at the next high might still perform better than many mutual funds once the fees are taken into account. But is it really the best strategy?
One concern is that funds are useful if you have 30+ years. But what if you only have 10? And these particular ten, not just an arbitrary decade when the market performs in the way you want it to? Are there other options?
One option getting a lot of press these days is dividend stocks or funds. The big advantage of dividends, of course, is that they pay out regardless of stock price. In other words, if you've bought into a solid company with a reasonable (4-10%) dividend yield, than the market valuation of that company becomes mostly irrelevant (except those sale prices start to make more sense!). This is very appealing to those spooked by the crazy unpredictable market of the moment. This is an approach that I am very interested in.
However, dividend stock picking brings up the ethical dilemma once more. The major recommendations at the moment? The most solidly performing, lots of cash on hand and still reasonable profits generating companies that are likely to continue increasing their dividend payouts in the future?
GE, Johnson and Johnson, AMEX, Pharmaceutical Companies, and yes, there's always Bank of America or Philip Morris.
These companies may all look good financially; but can I ignore their ratings as some of the worst corporations out there for their social and environmental impact? Check out Corporate Critic for pretty detailed info.
There are the financial institutions, insurance, and some other more neutral companies--companies I wouldn't actually do business with, but I wouldn't feel too horrible investing in... I think.
But the problem with even dividends is that it still relies on a model of infinite, perpetual growth, which I believe at its core is unsustainable. But are there other options?
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Jacob over at ERE has a brilliant post today that really has me thinking, especially in conjunction with the Reality Check over at Frugal Bachelor. Jacob asks, how would our perspective be different if we (humans) lived forever? If we had long-term social knowledge--150 yr, 250 yr perspectives--on the cycles of human impact and function on the earth. How would that knowledge be useful today?
Frugal Bachelor writes that we need to remember that the western PF division of "wants" and "needs" to create budgets is an illusion. Needs, he reminds us, are human and universal and basic. We need shelter, not a home. We need food and water, not organic, imported food and bottled, filtered water.
These two reminders really struck me. Living in a place that has a substantial indigenous presence, I do think regularly about the value of indigenous knowledge. When the economy hit the fan, all of sudden historians are the people everyone wants to talk to. Is this the same as the 1929 crash? Are we headed for another Great Depression? Should our public policies start mimicking FDR's?
But I can't help but wonder longer and deeper than that. If this crisis stops industrialization in its tracks, even for a little while, that may well help the environment and carbon output. But if we were really back in a Depression-like state, where inflation is so high that paper money becomes irrelevant to meeting daily needs, what would those needs be and how would we meet them? Who has the knowledge we need? I know that in many communities, people are working hard to preserve farming knowlege--saving seeds, preserving heritage varietals, etc--for just such an eventuality. And communities based around self-sufficiency in this regard would probably be sustainable.
But this morning, I'm also understanding that the history of that farming knowledge in North America is still quite short--300 years or so at the most, and that's in the East. It's a colonial knowledge: the crops are largely imported, even the idea of farming and to some degree gardening itself is imported from another place, culture, and social memory that's not related to the ecology of this place. It's an artificial system and as such, could break down. So who has the long-term knowledge of this land and how it functions and what resources we would have available to us if necessary? Indigenous communities. So marginalized and decimated through colonization, wouldn't it be something for them to suddenly be recognized as holding the information that is the most valuable of all!
As I think that possibility through, though, I feel like I sadly truly see the environmental devastation that has been wreaked. Indigenous communities in this part of the country had a rich social and material culture based on what was ecologically available to them here, but if we were to need to turn back to those resources, we would be in real trouble. If we needed clean rivers and oceans rich with salmon, abalone, halibut, etc; if we needed forests full of small game and mushrooms, berries and other plants, as well as the resources to create shelter for ourselves; if we needed wetlands to provide homes for beaver, birds, ducks, and other creatures, as well as the filtration system to clean our water; would they be there? How big a population could we sustain?
Perhaps this is what we really need to be talking about in terms of bringing the economy and ecology together. Suddenly the focus turns to our real vulnerability--a vulnerability not just of wants, but of essential needs.
Frugal Bachelor writes that we need to remember that the western PF division of "wants" and "needs" to create budgets is an illusion. Needs, he reminds us, are human and universal and basic. We need shelter, not a home. We need food and water, not organic, imported food and bottled, filtered water.
These two reminders really struck me. Living in a place that has a substantial indigenous presence, I do think regularly about the value of indigenous knowledge. When the economy hit the fan, all of sudden historians are the people everyone wants to talk to. Is this the same as the 1929 crash? Are we headed for another Great Depression? Should our public policies start mimicking FDR's?
But I can't help but wonder longer and deeper than that. If this crisis stops industrialization in its tracks, even for a little while, that may well help the environment and carbon output. But if we were really back in a Depression-like state, where inflation is so high that paper money becomes irrelevant to meeting daily needs, what would those needs be and how would we meet them? Who has the knowledge we need? I know that in many communities, people are working hard to preserve farming knowlege--saving seeds, preserving heritage varietals, etc--for just such an eventuality. And communities based around self-sufficiency in this regard would probably be sustainable.
But this morning, I'm also understanding that the history of that farming knowledge in North America is still quite short--300 years or so at the most, and that's in the East. It's a colonial knowledge: the crops are largely imported, even the idea of farming and to some degree gardening itself is imported from another place, culture, and social memory that's not related to the ecology of this place. It's an artificial system and as such, could break down. So who has the long-term knowledge of this land and how it functions and what resources we would have available to us if necessary? Indigenous communities. So marginalized and decimated through colonization, wouldn't it be something for them to suddenly be recognized as holding the information that is the most valuable of all!
As I think that possibility through, though, I feel like I sadly truly see the environmental devastation that has been wreaked. Indigenous communities in this part of the country had a rich social and material culture based on what was ecologically available to them here, but if we were to need to turn back to those resources, we would be in real trouble. If we needed clean rivers and oceans rich with salmon, abalone, halibut, etc; if we needed forests full of small game and mushrooms, berries and other plants, as well as the resources to create shelter for ourselves; if we needed wetlands to provide homes for beaver, birds, ducks, and other creatures, as well as the filtration system to clean our water; would they be there? How big a population could we sustain?
Perhaps this is what we really need to be talking about in terms of bringing the economy and ecology together. Suddenly the focus turns to our real vulnerability--a vulnerability not just of wants, but of essential needs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Line between Life and Money
So one of the reasons that I'm not already financially independent is that I don't have a laser focus on earning money. I've started this blog precisely to explore the balance between life and money, recognizing that a healthy life doesn't prioritze one extreme over the other. I'm one of those who believes you can do anything, but you can't do *everything*, at least not all at once! I feel convinced that if becoming a millionaire was my single minded goal, I would be there by now. But, of course, my life values regularly get in the way.
At the moment, I'm at a little cross-roads with my job. I'm currently a sessional instructor, which means I'm reapplying for my job every term, with no guarantees. I've worked at this university before, and I know I have a good reputation. No one speaks to me as if I'm leaving. However last year I worked at a college in a city about an hour and a half drive away. In the college system here, it's common that if you work 2 consecutive years, you automatically become a permanent employee. You go on the faculty pay scale, get full benefits, etc. We moved to a town halfway between the two cities, and started commuting.
I loved it there, and I got on well with the department. But at the end of the year, budget cuts meant that all temporary work disappeared, and it didn't look like I had a chance to roll-over. At the same time, we bought a condo and moved back to our former city, and then I got hired again at the university. Everything looks good and we're enjoying life.
But lo and behold, the college calls me up a week before the term begins and offers me part-time work (replacing a sick leave)! I couldn't accept because of the schedule I was already committed to, but left the next term open. About three weeks later (two weeks into the fall term), they call back and offer me more courses for the fall! It's also clear that they are asking me before even the person that they hired to do the classes that I turned down!
So now I'm torn. Accepting means commuting all winter, and we've sold our second car, so it means figuring out a car-share. It means more time committment for a little less pay and higher expenses (gas!). But it also means keeping the potential for a permanent job sooner rather than later--which means more pay, security, and a chance to move to a more rurual and affordable area.
Turning it down means *hoping!* that the university here hires me back, which means a little more money (we're talking a difference of less than $100/month, so not a determining factor) for a little less work, certainly less of a time committement and fewer expenses. But also less job security, benefits, community, etc.
In the end, this is one of those decisions where how much I'm willing to sacrifice in the short term is key. I'm terrified to turn down work before I have new work confirmed--that's financially irresponsible! But it's the intangibles that make the difference: I feel like I'm on a path, and that if I just pay attention to what I *want* to do next, the long term will take care of itself.
And that's where, somehow, the balance has to be between life and money. I have to respect, honour and be responsible about the money I bring in because it's where my life energy goes (limited in supply!), but, in the end, the decisions I'm making are about where my life energy wants to be, and I have to hope that this, in turn will bring in the money. Wow, that sounds pretty out there when I write it down! But so far, so good.
Curious that carbon footprint isn't a deciding factor in this, although it plays a part. The lighter footprint is in staying put, and I guess my gut will just bring all of this into alignment somehow!
At the moment, I'm at a little cross-roads with my job. I'm currently a sessional instructor, which means I'm reapplying for my job every term, with no guarantees. I've worked at this university before, and I know I have a good reputation. No one speaks to me as if I'm leaving. However last year I worked at a college in a city about an hour and a half drive away. In the college system here, it's common that if you work 2 consecutive years, you automatically become a permanent employee. You go on the faculty pay scale, get full benefits, etc. We moved to a town halfway between the two cities, and started commuting.
I loved it there, and I got on well with the department. But at the end of the year, budget cuts meant that all temporary work disappeared, and it didn't look like I had a chance to roll-over. At the same time, we bought a condo and moved back to our former city, and then I got hired again at the university. Everything looks good and we're enjoying life.
But lo and behold, the college calls me up a week before the term begins and offers me part-time work (replacing a sick leave)! I couldn't accept because of the schedule I was already committed to, but left the next term open. About three weeks later (two weeks into the fall term), they call back and offer me more courses for the fall! It's also clear that they are asking me before even the person that they hired to do the classes that I turned down!
So now I'm torn. Accepting means commuting all winter, and we've sold our second car, so it means figuring out a car-share. It means more time committment for a little less pay and higher expenses (gas!). But it also means keeping the potential for a permanent job sooner rather than later--which means more pay, security, and a chance to move to a more rurual and affordable area.
Turning it down means *hoping!* that the university here hires me back, which means a little more money (we're talking a difference of less than $100/month, so not a determining factor) for a little less work, certainly less of a time committement and fewer expenses. But also less job security, benefits, community, etc.
In the end, this is one of those decisions where how much I'm willing to sacrifice in the short term is key. I'm terrified to turn down work before I have new work confirmed--that's financially irresponsible! But it's the intangibles that make the difference: I feel like I'm on a path, and that if I just pay attention to what I *want* to do next, the long term will take care of itself.
And that's where, somehow, the balance has to be between life and money. I have to respect, honour and be responsible about the money I bring in because it's where my life energy goes (limited in supply!), but, in the end, the decisions I'm making are about where my life energy wants to be, and I have to hope that this, in turn will bring in the money. Wow, that sounds pretty out there when I write it down! But so far, so good.
Curious that carbon footprint isn't a deciding factor in this, although it plays a part. The lighter footprint is in staying put, and I guess my gut will just bring all of this into alignment somehow!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Devil in the Details
My goals are lofty. About five years ago (I think!), I read a book called The Cruising Life by Jim Trefethen. Like many books on how to leave your current life behind and sail around the world, it was hugely inspiring, and focused on paring down your current life and saving as much as humanly possible. Though I'd not sailed much, I was hooked. DH, who is passionate about anything to do with boats on the water, took no convincing. This was our new life plan.
The problem was me. I was in the middle of a PhD program, and still felt like I needed to actually contribute something to society before I left it all behind. But we settled on a 10-yr plan: that would give me time to finish school and work for some years, time to save up every penny and be financially prepared. But really long term goals are hard to keep in focus, and life continues to unfold in unpredictable ways. I started to question whether or not it was actually ethical to drop out of society instead of working to change it, and I started to see that, while sailing has a very light footprint, pulling into ports around the world means that you depend on other people having surplus to share with you. But the idea of the 10-yr plan to financial independence stuck--at that point, we thought, we can decide what we want to do.
So here we are today, and I'm sorry to say, it doesn't feel like we're halfway there. In fact, realistically, I think we're looking at 10 years from now! That's not the end of the world; in 10 years I'll only be 45, and DH will still be retiring early. Over the past 5 years, we have paid off a tremendous amount of debt: when we first combined finances we had almost $30,000 to get through, and since then we've paid off our wedding ($6000), and cars ($5000). We've also taken several trips--we have a hard time not travelling!
And we did all that with me *still* in school and largely working part time. So we're fine with that. But now I'm starting to work full-time in a reasonably consistent way. Summers are still a bit dodgy, but during the school year I actually make as much or more than DH! (All that school better be good for something!) So my current quest is to make sure that all that new income goes directly to the FIRE goal.
I'll tell you a secret: I'm an extremist at heart. When I started reading Jacob's 5-year path to financial independence, I was ready to switch to lentil soup and tuna sandwiches and riding my bike to work to save $33/month. I was ready to pare down to the bone and try to save 70-80% of our monthly income.
But the reality check is a little more complicated. In my mind, the goal isn't just to live like paupers now so that we can afford to live like paupers without working later (although even as I write that it's appealing at one level!). The goal is to pare down life to a level that costs the least amount of money but that still feels comfortable and sustainable, so that we can stay there happily for the rest of our lives. This is a process, and I'll be tracking that process here.
So where are we now? The baseline isn't horrible, but it's not where I want to be. After tracking expenses for August and September, here's how things stack up (roughly).
Housing costs: 25% (mortage, strata, insurance--missing are taxes, n/a as yet)
Food costs: 15% (groceries are down a bit for September, but meals out were up :( )
Transportation costs: 6 % (car maintenance, gas, transit pass)
Travel: 3%
Gifts: 5%
Work: 4.5%
Health: 3.5%
Communication: 2.5%
Debt Paymt: 37%
Okay, I know that adds up to just over 100% thanks to rounding up decimals, but you get the picture. The debt payment section includes paying my tuition this term ($1500). We have one more debt to pay with my next paycheque, and then this section becomes our savings. First goal: savings at 40%. Getting to my next goal--living on DH's paycheque and saving mine--I guess that will depend on how far down I can get that grocery bill!
The problem was me. I was in the middle of a PhD program, and still felt like I needed to actually contribute something to society before I left it all behind. But we settled on a 10-yr plan: that would give me time to finish school and work for some years, time to save up every penny and be financially prepared. But really long term goals are hard to keep in focus, and life continues to unfold in unpredictable ways. I started to question whether or not it was actually ethical to drop out of society instead of working to change it, and I started to see that, while sailing has a very light footprint, pulling into ports around the world means that you depend on other people having surplus to share with you. But the idea of the 10-yr plan to financial independence stuck--at that point, we thought, we can decide what we want to do.
So here we are today, and I'm sorry to say, it doesn't feel like we're halfway there. In fact, realistically, I think we're looking at 10 years from now! That's not the end of the world; in 10 years I'll only be 45, and DH will still be retiring early. Over the past 5 years, we have paid off a tremendous amount of debt: when we first combined finances we had almost $30,000 to get through, and since then we've paid off our wedding ($6000), and cars ($5000). We've also taken several trips--we have a hard time not travelling!
And we did all that with me *still* in school and largely working part time. So we're fine with that. But now I'm starting to work full-time in a reasonably consistent way. Summers are still a bit dodgy, but during the school year I actually make as much or more than DH! (All that school better be good for something!) So my current quest is to make sure that all that new income goes directly to the FIRE goal.
I'll tell you a secret: I'm an extremist at heart. When I started reading Jacob's 5-year path to financial independence, I was ready to switch to lentil soup and tuna sandwiches and riding my bike to work to save $33/month. I was ready to pare down to the bone and try to save 70-80% of our monthly income.
But the reality check is a little more complicated. In my mind, the goal isn't just to live like paupers now so that we can afford to live like paupers without working later (although even as I write that it's appealing at one level!). The goal is to pare down life to a level that costs the least amount of money but that still feels comfortable and sustainable, so that we can stay there happily for the rest of our lives. This is a process, and I'll be tracking that process here.
So where are we now? The baseline isn't horrible, but it's not where I want to be. After tracking expenses for August and September, here's how things stack up (roughly).
Housing costs: 25% (mortage, strata, insurance--missing are taxes, n/a as yet)
Food costs: 15% (groceries are down a bit for September, but meals out were up :( )
Transportation costs: 6 % (car maintenance, gas, transit pass)
Travel: 3%
Gifts: 5%
Work: 4.5%
Health: 3.5%
Communication: 2.5%
Debt Paymt: 37%
Okay, I know that adds up to just over 100% thanks to rounding up decimals, but you get the picture. The debt payment section includes paying my tuition this term ($1500). We have one more debt to pay with my next paycheque, and then this section becomes our savings. First goal: savings at 40%. Getting to my next goal--living on DH's paycheque and saving mine--I guess that will depend on how far down I can get that grocery bill!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Ethical Food, Sustainable Budget?
Over the last few weeks, there have been several discussions in the frugal finance blog world about family food budgets. Trent, over at The Simple Dollar, opened up his family's food spending and pantry to discuss when frugality isn't always the number one priority. Tim at Free-at-45 then posted about how he and his family manages to keep their food spending down to pennies a meal.
I've been taking a closer look at our spending, and food is a big focus in our lives. We love good quality food, love to cook, and live in a part of the country that produces a lot of what we love to eat: fresh seafood, local artisan (read stinky!) cheese, smoked salmon candy, craft beer and lovely wine... food is a part of our entertainment and splurging, and I knew our spending would reflect that.
But imagine my shock at discovering that, at least for the month of August, we had spent almost $800 on groceries alone! This is for two people and no kids! I put on my detective hat to find out what was going on.
There were a few possibilities:
Obviously there has been substantial inflation since then, but I don't eat very much differently, so I had been assuming that DH and I could eat for $100 week, or $400-500 a month. I went through the possibilities.
1. We are not wasting food. I hardly throw any food away (a very small amount of leftovers and maybe an old green onion or dry bit of ginger every few weeks).
2.This is entirely possible. DH is addicted (there, I said it!) to good, expensive cheese. There are probably a few other items we could cut back on. But we buy NO prepared food (beyond some tortilla chips and occasionally crackers), and haven't been buying seafood much recently.
3. Okay, this was an eye opener! I knew that the cost of grain, etc, has been rising around the world, but I hadn't really looked closely at our own costs. Just a few years ago, we were buying 10kg/22lb bags of flour on sale for $4.98. Today, on sale for $13.50! I know I could get the same bag at Costco for less than $10, but still! Yesterday we bought a 5kg bag of organic unbleached flour for $6.79. Pasta (more on this in a future post) used to be 4x 900g bags for $5. Last night they were more than $3 each! There is definitely a culprit here. This is an area where we should be looking for sales and coupons.
4. Still on the fence about this one. The bulk of our diet is vegetables and fruit, and we keep costs down by buying 90% of it at a local farm. Our favorite farm doesn't spray, but is not certified organic, and we can get almost 2 weeks worth of produce and eggs for $40-$60--easily 1/2 to 1/3 what we would pay in the grocery store. I know we pay more in the summer because we buy so much seasonal fruit. If that's where the excess is, those nectarines are worth every penny!
5. Also possible. Because the farm only takes cash, and I mostly track our spending through our bank statement debits, every time I see a cash withdrawal, I count it as groceries. This is likely a little high. But we don't buy consumer items, so the small amount of cash that isn't going to groceries is probably going to a sandwich here and there. So I can't be too far off--but I will try to keep better track.
6. Don't think this one's possible--DH is losing weight, and I'm staying steady at the healthy weight I've been at for the last few years.
7. I will definitely be paying closer attention. In addition, I'm going to try staying on a cash budget for food--take out that $100 and make it last the week. I will report on the results!
What I noticed shopping at the supermarket last night is that we have definitely acquired some lifestyle inflation. Three to five years ago, when I last tracked our spending more carefully, there were simply fewer organic options available, and price was a higher priority. Now, although we have financial goals, they are voluntary ones, and we can actually afford to spend as much as we are. It just means we can't save as much. At the same time, there is also more and more information about organic food, the dysfunctional conventional farming system, and the carbon footprint of our diet.
I found myself last night looking at prices, and I realized that, for better or worse, our values are solidifying, and we're just not willing to make price the priority over quality any more. We didn't buy any produce at the store yesterday, aside from a few organic bananas, because there was nothing available that wasn't imported or wrapped in plastic. While we can take advantage of sales, we're not going to stop eating BC cherries (when they're in season) no matter how much they cost. Of course, if our financial picture changed and we had to cut back, going back to conventional products would be an option. But for now, I'll be investigating whether it is possible to eat according to our values and our budget. Wish me luck, and feel free to share your secrets!
I've been taking a closer look at our spending, and food is a big focus in our lives. We love good quality food, love to cook, and live in a part of the country that produces a lot of what we love to eat: fresh seafood, local artisan (read stinky!) cheese, smoked salmon candy, craft beer and lovely wine... food is a part of our entertainment and splurging, and I knew our spending would reflect that.
But imagine my shock at discovering that, at least for the month of August, we had spent almost $800 on groceries alone! This is for two people and no kids! I put on my detective hat to find out what was going on.
There were a few possibilities:
- We were buying too much food, more than we actually eat, and it was going to waste
- We were buying too many luxury food items, instead of focussing on less expensive staples
- Food prices have been increasing, and we just hadn't really noticed
- Organic, local food just costs that much!
- I'm not recording accurately
- We're eating too much (!)
- I'm not paying enough attention to prices and am not shopping with a budget in mind
Obviously there has been substantial inflation since then, but I don't eat very much differently, so I had been assuming that DH and I could eat for $100 week, or $400-500 a month. I went through the possibilities.
1. We are not wasting food. I hardly throw any food away (a very small amount of leftovers and maybe an old green onion or dry bit of ginger every few weeks).
2.This is entirely possible. DH is addicted (there, I said it!) to good, expensive cheese. There are probably a few other items we could cut back on. But we buy NO prepared food (beyond some tortilla chips and occasionally crackers), and haven't been buying seafood much recently.
3. Okay, this was an eye opener! I knew that the cost of grain, etc, has been rising around the world, but I hadn't really looked closely at our own costs. Just a few years ago, we were buying 10kg/22lb bags of flour on sale for $4.98. Today, on sale for $13.50! I know I could get the same bag at Costco for less than $10, but still! Yesterday we bought a 5kg bag of organic unbleached flour for $6.79. Pasta (more on this in a future post) used to be 4x 900g bags for $5. Last night they were more than $3 each! There is definitely a culprit here. This is an area where we should be looking for sales and coupons.
4. Still on the fence about this one. The bulk of our diet is vegetables and fruit, and we keep costs down by buying 90% of it at a local farm. Our favorite farm doesn't spray, but is not certified organic, and we can get almost 2 weeks worth of produce and eggs for $40-$60--easily 1/2 to 1/3 what we would pay in the grocery store. I know we pay more in the summer because we buy so much seasonal fruit. If that's where the excess is, those nectarines are worth every penny!
5. Also possible. Because the farm only takes cash, and I mostly track our spending through our bank statement debits, every time I see a cash withdrawal, I count it as groceries. This is likely a little high. But we don't buy consumer items, so the small amount of cash that isn't going to groceries is probably going to a sandwich here and there. So I can't be too far off--but I will try to keep better track.
6. Don't think this one's possible--DH is losing weight, and I'm staying steady at the healthy weight I've been at for the last few years.
7. I will definitely be paying closer attention. In addition, I'm going to try staying on a cash budget for food--take out that $100 and make it last the week. I will report on the results!
What I noticed shopping at the supermarket last night is that we have definitely acquired some lifestyle inflation. Three to five years ago, when I last tracked our spending more carefully, there were simply fewer organic options available, and price was a higher priority. Now, although we have financial goals, they are voluntary ones, and we can actually afford to spend as much as we are. It just means we can't save as much. At the same time, there is also more and more information about organic food, the dysfunctional conventional farming system, and the carbon footprint of our diet.
I found myself last night looking at prices, and I realized that, for better or worse, our values are solidifying, and we're just not willing to make price the priority over quality any more. We didn't buy any produce at the store yesterday, aside from a few organic bananas, because there was nothing available that wasn't imported or wrapped in plastic. While we can take advantage of sales, we're not going to stop eating BC cherries (when they're in season) no matter how much they cost. Of course, if our financial picture changed and we had to cut back, going back to conventional products would be an option. But for now, I'll be investigating whether it is possible to eat according to our values and our budget. Wish me luck, and feel free to share your secrets!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Place to Live First or Job First?
We live in a nice city on the West Coast. We've lived here for more than 10 years, and in that time have built up really good friendships and become involved in the culture of the community. The city has great services, a vibe that suits us, and we both have good jobs here, and good contacts if we should ever need new jobs. My extended family is scattered in cities not too far away, and we visit easily and regularly.
But.
This city is expensive! And our dream is to have a little property, build ourselves a green house (possibly off the grid), grow our own food and live simply. We're also working toward a small sailboat, and having space to store the boat during the winter would be great.
I'm just back from a weekend in a city in the north where we have good friends. It's a 10-12 hour drive from where we are now, and we drive basically through the whole province to get there. And what do we drive through? A variety of beautiful communities with great qualities of life, amazing geography and friendly people. A lot lower cost of living, and large acreages for the price of our city condo. Jobs can be harder to come by, depending on the community, but they are available in our fields.
So I'm wondering today what the first factor in the decision to move should be. Do you choose the place first and then find a job to make it work? Or do you follow the job, letting the job determine where you move? Penelope Trunk over at the Brazen Careerist did a pile of research and settled on a place first, and feels strongly that quality of life should come first. On the other hand, a good friend of mine lives in a place she feels ambivalent about, but she loves her job. She says that she spends 40 hours a week in her job, so moving somewhere she likes better to do a job she doesn't like as much doesn't make sense. The amount of time that she would spend enjoying the new location would be dwarfed by the time she spends working at something not as rewarding.
In the meantime, I'm trying to be patient and grateful. After all, we live in a place that suits us very well in many ways, and the dilemma is actually a condition of being attached to a job at all. This is part of the reason why we are working toward financial independence, and potentially diversifying some income streams, so that we can make these choices solely with our hearts, and not be so tied to practical concerns. Of course, within where we are now, there are still options, and I'll post about what other choices we might pursue.
But.
This city is expensive! And our dream is to have a little property, build ourselves a green house (possibly off the grid), grow our own food and live simply. We're also working toward a small sailboat, and having space to store the boat during the winter would be great.
I'm just back from a weekend in a city in the north where we have good friends. It's a 10-12 hour drive from where we are now, and we drive basically through the whole province to get there. And what do we drive through? A variety of beautiful communities with great qualities of life, amazing geography and friendly people. A lot lower cost of living, and large acreages for the price of our city condo. Jobs can be harder to come by, depending on the community, but they are available in our fields.
So I'm wondering today what the first factor in the decision to move should be. Do you choose the place first and then find a job to make it work? Or do you follow the job, letting the job determine where you move? Penelope Trunk over at the Brazen Careerist did a pile of research and settled on a place first, and feels strongly that quality of life should come first. On the other hand, a good friend of mine lives in a place she feels ambivalent about, but she loves her job. She says that she spends 40 hours a week in her job, so moving somewhere she likes better to do a job she doesn't like as much doesn't make sense. The amount of time that she would spend enjoying the new location would be dwarfed by the time she spends working at something not as rewarding.
In the meantime, I'm trying to be patient and grateful. After all, we live in a place that suits us very well in many ways, and the dilemma is actually a condition of being attached to a job at all. This is part of the reason why we are working toward financial independence, and potentially diversifying some income streams, so that we can make these choices solely with our hearts, and not be so tied to practical concerns. Of course, within where we are now, there are still options, and I'll post about what other choices we might pursue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
