London News: “Turn away from Joe?” Part 2

 [From Sept. 25 issue of London Free Press]

Roberta C. encourages us to turn away from Mayor Joe and the culture of BIG.

And what should we turn toward?

Roberta says:

All good thoughts. However, many can participate now in building a more sustainable community - without City Hall’s leadership - by gardening, cycling safely on sidewalks, reducing our spending, paying down debts, saving money for tough times ahead, and doing so in cooperation with others of like mind. 

Don't wait for new leadership. Create a city with characters now!

[Photos by G.Harrison]

***

Please click here to read London News: “Turn away from Joe?” Part 1

Small House: “They sell quickly in Old South, London”

One of my favourite sayings: Buy a small house or apartment near a bus route.

I should add, “Move quickly when one comes up in Wortley Village.”

 [8 Cathcart Street, across from Posno Flowers]

[Thirty steps away from a bus stop. Cool.]

It may have sold quickly because of price, location, size, the shrinking economy, or easy maintenance features. Or all of the above. Gone in a week.

[Photos by G.Harrison]

***

Please click here for more from This Old Economist

Newspaper Clippings: “Canadian wages keep falling”

[Canadian workers are failing to keep up with the rising cost of living as real wages continue to fall dramatically, new data from Statistics Canada shows. Nov. 25, Metro]

Average weekly earnings for non-farm payrolls fell in September. Many already know that.

When the “3.2 per cent inflation rate for the month is taken into consideration, the drop in real wages was more dramatic.” (Metro) Many already know that.

Many also know Canada’s unemployment rate is hovering around 8 per cent, with my home region of London suffering 9 per cent rates. Many know that because of the high rate of under-employment, low wages associated with part-time employment and lack of reliable full-time jobs with some semblance of benefits, the true unemployment rate is double or triple the reported number.


["I'd like something smaller than a Falcon, please."]

What many do not know is if governments and businesses have plans to create an alternative economy to the unsustainable, market-first, high-production-of-wasteful-goods model that is faltering in most countries of the world at present, and that will continue to do so into the future as easy, cheap oil disappears.

May I suggest The Small Economy, based on the culture of small (rather than the culture of big)? May I suggest the building of small houses (900 sq. ft. and smaller, not larger) and accompanying smaller-scaled appliances and furnishings, small vehicles (e.g., a three-wheeled, enclosed scooter with a small bed in the back for groceries) and necessary smaller-scaled parts and accessories, and small, energy-efficient apartments close to the downtowns of cities to save on fuel and infrastructure costs. (I’ll take a one-bedroom on the fifth floor - close to Gambrinus - as soon as it’s ready!)

Don’t hold your breath waiting for governments or corporations to promote The Small Economy or the culture of small. But - as real wages continue to shrink - prepare for it nevertheless.

***

Please click here for more reasons to adopt the culture of small.

.

London’s Small Houses: “Have we stopped building them?”

I cycled past this house last Sunday - I was on a ramble - and wondered who lived there. Someone short like me?


["There are many lovely small houses in Old South": photo GH]

I like small houses because my wife (also relatively short) and I fit well inside a cozy space.

When this particular house on Cynthia St. in Old South (between Byron and Askin St.) was built in the 1930s or ‘40s, however, I bet it held more than a husband and wife.

Would you be surprised if you learned it once was home to a mom and dad and three kids? I suppose your answer depends on when you were born.

For example, I was born in 1949 and my four siblings and I shared two bedrooms in the upstairs of a small century-old house in a village 40 miles east of London.

I notice this house (800 - 900 sq. ft.) not only has a lovely porch but a small upstairs as well, and years ago it was very common for kids to share a bedroom. (Some still do, but I hear that it’s not the norm. Please note; I'm rambling).

Today, I bet a retired couple live inside, with one car for the small driveway. And with more people retiring, I think this kind of house would get snapped up in a second if it was priced reasonably.

Would you raise a family here or consider this house as a retirement home?

Do we still build houses this size? If not, why not?

***

Please click here to view another small house.

.

Zoom w a View: PT 2 “Is this London’s smallest house?”

While pushing my twin grand-daughters around Old South - again and again, lovely, lovely - on Sunday I passed by a very small house covered with vintage aluminum siding.


The address of the wee house is 105 Askin St. and located 100 meters west of the corner of coffee and hardware (Askin and Wortley Rd.) and beside St. James Anglican church in the heart of Old South or Wortley Village.

It is one and a half stories and if there is an upstairs bathroom I’d be surprised if I could stand up in it, and I’m only 5 ft. 6 in. tall in platform shoes.

I really like it. It’s steps to the Red Roaster, has a maintenance-free exterior with a 1950s colour and posh attitude, and with a side window open the sounds of Wednesday evening choir practice would easily keep residents fully entertained, unless they’re into pro wrestling.


["Small and quaint, room enough for a medium-sized family in 1940.": photo GH]

I’m just guessing, but it appears 16 - 20 ft. wide and no more than 20 - 24 ft. deep. At most it is 480 sq. ft. in size on each floor.

‘Live small and prosper’ comes to mind when I look at it.

Is this London’s smallest house? What do you think?

***

Please click here to read PT 1 “Is this London’s smallest house?”

.

Live Small and Prosper Pt 2: Priorities related to your house

I concluded Pt 1 yesterday with the following deep thought:

“Though my wife and I live in Wortley Village, close to most conveniences, a move within the neighbourhood may only be 5 - 9 years away.”

Why?


["Four wintry scenes from The Village": photos GH]

In part, the answer lies within two more tips that S. Rinomato passes along to new homebuyers in a recent article entitled ‘Set priorities before house hunting’ even though I’ve been living at my current address in Wortley Village, a very convenient, cozy part of town, for over 25 years.

Rinomato writes:

“And what about the size of your home? The bigger the house, the more space you're heating and cooling. That's something to think about, since about 60% of Canadians' home energy use is related to these two activities.”


Allow me to add, the bigger the house the more furniture and appliances that are required as well. As far as I know, just about everything we need or want in every room comes with a price tag.

Rinomato adds, “Be realistic about how much space you're really going to use. Bigger isn't necessarily better.”

Well, that’s a problem for some,eh?


Many learn too late that one, two, three or more rooms don’t get much use after a year or two. And the ones that get lots of use could house a football ball team, not just their family.

I remember reading about the owner of a large ‘cottage’ in Muskoka a few years ago.

She said that 5,000 sq. ft. was probably too big for herself and husband.

Probably? She wasn’t sure?

She also said she would sometimes go and sit in a room for an hour just to get some use out of it.

Hopefully, by now she’s pretty sure it’s too big.

Yes, we must be realistic. And think about true needs.

That’s why I’m thinking about something smaller than my current 1,050 sq. ft. house now. My wife and I are getting older. We just don’t need as much room as we once did when our two boys lived with us.

Yes, smaller is sometimes cheaper but whether I’m inside or out, I wouldn’t mind doing a bit less work.


Okay, I lied. I’d like to do a lot less work.

If you’re thinking along the same lines, you may be one day joined by a legion of others who are searching for something smaller, more convenient, less work, cheaper.

Start collecting information now, I say.

Don’t get caught in the rush to ‘get small before we get low.’

.

Live Small and prosper: Priorities related to your house

Would you agree?

Most of the glossy pages of home magazines and inserts are reserved for pictures of glossy, expensive, out-of-reach-for-the ordinary-Joe houses, kitchens, bathrooms, renovations, additions and the like?

Do the pages seem to say, push, spend, improve? Bigger is better?

Well, that’s the vibe I get, at any rate.

But near the back of a recent ‘Homes’ insert in my local paper I found a sensible article - with no glossy photos, sorry - that actually said to new homebuyers that ‘bigger is not necessarily better.’ Amazing but true.

I also felt the tips to new homebuyers should also be considered by current homeowners, whether they’ve been in their house for 5 years or 35 years.

The article, entitled ‘Set priorities before house hunting’ starts out as follows:

“Many first-time homebuyers start out with wide eyes and a long wish list. But their list may be based on current trends and not reflect their true needs or values.” (Oct. 2, Sandra Rinomato, London Free Press)

Don’t many current homeowners also have a long wish list?


["I have a great backyard, but...": photo GH]

Aren’t many going further into debt to keep up with current trends?

Are some out of tune with their real needs?

Here’s one thing that Rinomato encourages new homebuyers to consider (before a purchase) that I think current home owners should consider as well.

“For instance, you might long for a large lot in a quiet suburban cul-de-sac. But ask yourself how much time you're willing to spend in your car when you could be enjoying your new home.”

That’s a good idea.

I bet there are people living in the ‘burbs who are growing tired of driving here, there and everywhere for just about every need.

Rinomato continues:

“Access to public transport, proximity to work and school, and having shops and services within walking distance can make a big difference. There's more at stake here than just lowering carbon emissions; it's also about quality of life.”

Some in the ‘burbs may well agree but say, it’s too late now, we’re stuck.

But are they?

For the time being, no doubt. But it’s never too late to begin thinking about a house closer to many of life’s amenities and a life that is less car-dependent.

And if you’re thinking it, talk to significant others about your feelings. Ask if a three-, five-, or ten-year escape plan is worth considering. And if there is mutual agreement, start collecting information about other, more convenient parts of town. (Ever heard of Wortley Village?)

If it makes sense, start the process.

Already, I’m thinking about it myself. Though my wife and I already live in Wortley Village, close to most conveniences, a move within the neighbourhood may only be 5 - 10 years away.

Why?

More to follow.

***

Want to skip ahead?

Full article here.

.

Deforest City Blues: Is it the summer of your discontent? Pt 4

I went to the beach. I had my walk.

I thought about Dee’s comment.

I.e., “We have to do something about this, but what? Does anyone have any suggestions other than griping? I’m open to suggestions.” (July 31, The Summer of Discontent, London Free Press)

So, how can we escape higher taxes, levies and fees?

For the short-term I suggest the following:

First, bitch and moan loudly. In some cases this action seems to make those in charge back pedal and postpone the pain until a later date.

For example; local businesses bitched about higher water rates and local citizens will now pick up the tab for another year; businesses and consumers moaned about eco-fees and they have been shelved by the provincial government for a few months; and Western Fair administrators back pedalled on some admission increases after a hoot and a holler were heard.

Second, win the lottery, because the North American lifestyle is unlikely to grow cheaper in cost. And our governments are in debt up to their collective starched collars and will likely always need lots of money just to stay even.

(History has shown, however, we don’t stay even. We grow deeper in debt more often than we pay it off).

For the long-term I suggest the following actions:

First, drag out your ‘Budget Book for Household Expenses’ (you may call it by a different name at your house, e.g., Lifestyle Log, Monthly Mayhem, The Ever-decreasing Bank Balance, Where Does It $$ All Go, Good-bye Pay Cheque, etc.) and convert regular expenses to a percentage of your regular income.


["You must, you must, you mist keep track": photos GH]

E.g., mortgage - 30% of income, car payment - 11%, TV cable 2%, hydro - 3%... remainder - 2% (insert laugh track here if you’re feeling blue), etc.

Second, list as many ways as possible that you can decrease monthly expenses. Don’t be afraid to think outside the box (You can't afford a box?) or leave no stone unturned.


["Ah, yes. The Ever-declining Balance"]

What would be on my list?

Go back in time and buy a small house that says, “I’m living under my means.” Plant 6 trees.

Right. I’m messing with you. The time machine hasn’t been invented.

However, my wife, two boys and I moved into a 1,050 sq. ft. cottage (my current house, sans the boys) in the 1980s and managed quite well. So, small is good.

It may have helped that I grew up in a seven-room, 950 sq. ft. house (incl. one narrow bathroom) with parents and 4 siblings and learned that ‘living small’ was doable. (And no, we didn’t eat in shifts. Though I did kick my brother’s bunk on occasion to get him to be quiet so I could sleep).

Since homes and apartments tend to be the biggest expense in the average budget book, and directly affect how much we spend for energy, fuel, taxes, etc., we must ask ourselves, what can be done to decrease their cost - without the use of time machines?

You can sell the house and buy a smaller, less-expensive one.
You can rent a cheaper apartment.
You can convert part of your house into an apartment and collect rent.

What else? You tell me.

I know changing how you live is difficult, but if it would help you save money for the tough times ahead it should at least be considered?

There may be easier ways to get out from under.

Let’s go back to that budget book.

What else can be done to cut expenses that just keep on comin’?

Link to Series: Please click here to read Discontent Pt 5

***

Isn’t his fun?

Seeing expenses as a percentage of monthly income does help.

Do the math.

.

In the Workshop: The paint is dry, the price is set

One minute after placing eight wren houses on the front porch (to sun dry) I received two small visitors.


One chickadee stopped in the apricot tree, almost within touching distance, and the second entered the first house on the left. (I hastily snapped a picture; it turned out blurry. Rats!)

In amazement, I watched as the second chickadee went from one house to the next. As soon as the camera focussed, the bird moved to another house.


["Very nice. Next. Very nice. Next.": photos GAH]

Nervous creatures? Maybe excited? (“Eight to choose from. And we’re here first!”)

The first chickadee left the tree and checked out a green house under the eave of my own.


["Honey, you can see a coffee shop from here!"]

I hope the couple pick the green house because the smaller wren houses are going on sale on Monday at a local shop.

***

Yesterday I asked you to guess what I would charge for a wren house.

I’ve settled on $12.

Were you close?

.

Household debt could sink a lot of Canadian families

I think we’re heading into an age of austerity but many people didn’t get the memo.

“Household debt in Canada rose to record levels in 2009, with almost two-thirds of families reporting that they would be in financial trouble if their paycheques were just one week late” began a recent newspaper article in a local newspaper.

My eyeballs came to a screeching halt.

People don’t have an emergency stash around the house, say, under the mattress?

Obviously not - for two-thirds of families.


[“Okay, maybe a tad bigger for starters”: photo link]

So, what are people learning in high school these days? Surely folks should be at least learning how to make egg-in-the-hole, darn their socks and then ‘sock away’ a bit of emergency cash, so that a set back doesn’t sink them entirely.

“...Average household debt rose to $96,100 last year (cf $54,200 in 1990). That resulted in a debt-to-income ratio of 145%, the highest ever, with the level set to climb to 160% by 2012.”

My recommendation:

Because “the booming housing market was singled out as a particular area of concern, with record-low interest rates encouraging families to take on more debt than they can afford to buy a property,” levels of government should be strongly encouraging home builders and buyers to move toward smaller homes.

Sure, it means rethinking the American dream, but let's do that.

Less square footage, perks and debt now means families have a better change of owning their home one day rather than it owning them.

***

Is your debt-load going north or south?

.

It Strikes Me Funny: I am in debt but I think it’s manageable Pt 4

Getting hit with a financial triple whammy (i.e., low cash, high debt and no or low retirement savings) during tough economic times is a terrible experience.

To live with the prospects of a poor retirement while helping adult children financially survive is a tough slug to the gut as well, and more Canadian baby boomers are getting hit every year, to the tune of almost $3,700 per child.

[Click here to read Part 1,

Part 2,

and Part 3 for some context. You’ll be glad you did and I’ll still be here when you get back. Hey, I’m retired, and waiting for you means I’m not spending money - which is a good thing.]

I recently asked Herald Krimmer, a friend and financial advisor, a few questions about money matters and his answers and comments were interesting, and if I knew in my twenties what I know now about finances I might not be carrying as big a debt load as I am today.

(But, hey, I still think it’s manageable as long as sons David and Paul don’t move back home with their wives and children. Admittedly, my wife would love it but I’d be fretting everyday about who drank my ESB and ate the last slice of pie in the fridge).

While sitting with Herald at a Richmond Row coffee shop I said, “How do some people you deal with get into financial trouble?”

He said, “Some earn, for example, $50,000 per year but spend $60,000. Others earn $100,000 but spend $120,000.”

“What happens to them?” I said.

“I know someone your age (i.e., 60-years old) who will never be mortgage free. His spending went from 120 to $150,000 per year and now rents an apartment while carrying what remains of his last mortgage.”

I asked if fewer people seem to be living within their means today than 10 or 20 years ago and he nodded.

When I asked him for one possible reason he said, “Partly, it’s a sense of entitlement in people. Though many parents today had a working class start, they did relatively or very well compared to their own parents and subsequently wanted their own children to have some of the things they never had.


["My family's working class home: We learned the value of a dollar": photo GAH]

“Some members of the younger generation have been showered with gifts, so to speak, and when they go out to work they find it a bit of a struggle to maintain the lifestyle they’re used to. And instead of spending their money responsibly they run out and buy expensive goods they simply can’t afford.”

Household debt, as a result, has hit an all-time high, while at the same time we see a trend away from company pensions with defined benefits.

People can get therefore into trouble at an early age and stay that way for many years.

Any solutions to the triple whammy?

How about we expect all students to get a high school or university credit re financial basics before they receive easy credit from banks?

Mr. Krimmer liked that idea and we talked about ways of rectifying personal financial matters. I’ll say a few more things about our talk in a future column and let you know when it hits the streets.

Until then:

Reduce spending, pay down debt, and save more money for the tough times ahead.

And to David and Paul: You're always welcome at home.

***

You probably knew that was coming, didn’t you?

.

Deforest City Blues: The bad news was bound to get out

Cheerleaders for Deforest City, e.g., the Mayor, Tourism London, operators of ubiquitous big box stores, etc., want everyone in the free world to know the following:

Deforest City (aka London, Ont.) is a great place to do business

It’s a cool place to live

It’s a wonderful place to visit

It’s an amazing one-stop-spot (okay, maybe 6 or 7) for shopping

They must have cringed when the following headline appeared in the Jan. 8 issue of The Free Press:

We’re Worst In Ontario

And what are we worst at?

'More toxic chemicals are pumped into the skies over the London region than anywhere else in Ontario...'

Our air quality is even worse than... wait for it... 'Canada's largest metropolis, the Toronto area, which ranks second in Ontario.'


["A chemical valley is just a tombstone's throw away from London"]

Sure, our cheerleaders want to hang onto our young people so they’ll settle down, buy a single-family home in the ‘burbs on the edge of town and shop ‘til they drop inside city limits, but once more people hear about the news that ‘more than 6% of the pollutants released are suspected of causing cancer, while more than 9% are linked to reproductive and developmental defects,’ Deforest City doesn’t sound like such a good deal. (Click here to read full article).

What to do?

Since most of the pollutants likely relate to the production and burning of oil and gas (read Sarnia’s Chemical Valley and car-dependence), our cheerleaders need to do whatever possible to get people into smaller homes closer to all amenities and mass transit.


["How much is an electric trolley ride?": Richmond St., London]

Hard to do after selling people the wrong dream for the last 40 - 60 years, enticing folks to live miles from the (subsequently dead) core and accommodating cars and light trucks (built for 3 - 6 passengers but normally carrying one) at every turn.

Three cheers!

***

Though most pollution goes into the air, it ends up in our water.

Just imagine what the next environmental report will be about.

.

Live Small and Prosper: Cost of living too high?

Bills piling up? Cost of rent or your mortgage too high?

I have some advice - don't move to New York City.

This just in:

Cost of a three-bedroom apt. in Manhattan - $4,300 per month.

Yousa. I'd have to have three rich boarders to help me survive. Plus, I'd be sleeping on the couch - if I could afford a couch.

But there's more news out of NYC, and it's worse.

"A townhouse, dubbed NYC's skinniest home, has sold for $2.1 million US. The three-by-12-metre long building was built in 1873 on land used as an alley between homes." (Jan. 15, London Free Press)

Yousax2. That's over $5,000 US per sq. ft.

In Canadian terms, that's over $5,000 for the space required to store your winter boots.

Forget owning slippers, pal!

I think I'll stay in my small house (approx. 1,000 sq. ft.) in Deforest City and never complain about knob and tube wiring and having only one bathroom again.

.

From The Workshop: Birdhouse looks like my family home in Norwich

When designing a new style of birdhouse recently it didn’t dawn on me that I was following some parts of a pattern that another builder had followed over 100 years ago.


["This looks familiar," I thought: photos by GAH]

But when I was finished two ‘new ones’ yesterday it struck me funny that they looked quite a bit like the 900 sq. ft. home I grew up in (from age 6 to 18, with 4 sibs and 2 parents) back in the village I still call my hometown - Norwich, Ontario.


["Hmmm, it looks like a house I know"]


By examining a fairly recent photo of our century-old home I bet you can see some similarities.


["My gosh. I lived in a birdhouse!"]

Okay, sure, only the birdhouse has a fence at the front. And there’s no door on the left side of my family home. Or bottle caps nailed to the wall. Or 4 round holes drilled in the front. And the birdhouse is smaller when counting square footage.

But, other than those things - almost a perfect match, eh?

Oh, on a different topic. I built a second feeder yesterday too.

However, it only looks like a feeder.

.

If not a carbon allowance, then what? Pt 2

I’ve been plodding my way through The Suicidal Planet (see Read This, right margin) and am nearing the end.

One personal conclusion so far: It sounds more like homicide to me.

The author, among other things, encourages North Americans to consider a policy related to personal carbon allowances for reducing the carbon emissions associated with our high-energy-use lifestyle rather than price rises via taxation - the key alternative to carbon allowance.


["Too many good years has spoiled us rotten"]

He does go on to say, however, “taxation of energy in the United States is at much lower levels than in European countries, so in theory there is much scope for raising taxes.”

And I started to think... (did you smell wood burning?) why don’t we just raise taxes on energy? The taxation system is already in place. We wouldn’t need to establish a costly carbon allowance administration complex.

Answer (in part): North Americans don’t like taxes. Many feel they were born to be free and taxes just get in the way of free enterprise.

(Many of us grew up to a song called Born Free, My Father’s a Doctor, or something like that, so low taxes and expenses feel like a birth right).

Some may wonder, how can the Europeans tolerate such high fuel prices and in some countries, a carbon tax system as well?

Maybe it’s because they haven’t seen oil spill out of the ground for as many years as North Americans and don’t take cheap oil prices for granted. And the fact Europe has had to import a large portion of its supply for many years may help citizens appreciate it more and be willing to tolerate the higher price e.g., for a liter of fuel. (What is it now in Copenhagen? About $400?)

Not only do North Americans not like taxes but our governments, for some reason, would prefer not to be in the business of public education related to climate change, or share the need to conserve limited fossil fuels for the sake of future generations, or pass on information about the advantages (related to all natural resources) of living in a smaller house, or driving a smaller car or buying fewer material goods (many made very cheaply off-shore) and paying off debt.

So, there may be room to raise taxes but no heart for it in North America. Perhaps too many good years has spoiled us rotten.

Perhaps soon a carbon allowance will be arranged and promoted in North America in such a way as to appear more positive in nature than taxes even though (as the author of The Suicidal Planet writes) “though seen as little different from traditional energy taxes under a new guise, several European nations have introduced a tax on carbon.”

And then, won’t it be nice to see many citizens choose to live small, stay within their carbon allowance (and save money while they’re at it) without all the complaining normally associated with a rise in taxes?

***

I still don’t mind more taxes associated with energy use, as long as the proceeds can be seen to move us toward more sustainable fuels.

Could you live with more targeted taxes or a carbon allowance?

.

Canada’s growth to stagnate! That can’t be good, can it? Pt 2

On Nov. 11 I clipped an article from the local paper (The London Free Press) that says a few things about the next ten years in Canada.

A new report says we’re headed for a decade of stagnant growth because of four things:

post-recession adjustments

the aging population

low productivity

and the measures governments may adopt to control climate change

(What’s stagnant mean? Click here to read Pt 1 and find out.)

Post-recession adjustments might mean that our economy will be affected by our new-found desire to be more austere, i.e. to spend less, save more and pay down debt. The aging population may feel they have enough stuff and as they retire they will not all be replaced, affecting productivity. And reparation money that goes toward the environment may not seem to be helping the economy.

Should we be depressed now, or for ten years?


["Compared to this guy, life is good"]

No.

Though the writers of the report, economists Derek Burleton and Grant Bishop, say "it is critical to recognize that things will not simply return to how they were," Canada’s economy will still experience some growth, just less than what we’ve become used to as we’ve pursued excessive lifestyles.

"This (muted growth)” write the economists, “represents a new normal for the budgets of households and governments, as well as the returns on domestic capital investment."

So, can we live with stagnant and muted?

It’s like asking, can we live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, eat less beef and pork and chicken, attend fewer recreational activities and still feel we’re living well?

Of course we can. And we will, if what Derek Burleton and Grant Bishop say is true:

“And there is not much that anyone can do about it.”

Of course, they’re wrong. They forget that not all of us think like economists. Some of us realize that our outlook affects the outcome of our lives.

***

Feel free to read the full article and respond in some way.

.

From the front porch in black and white

Last year the leaves from the apricot tree fell in mid-October after an early snow.


The weight of the snow and ice snapped two large branches off the tree and I considered taking the tree down.


["A sheltered walkway": photos GAH]

I'm glad I didn't.

It has survived well and, with the help of a nearby fir, shelters the path to my front door.

***

The fir once had a partner but at the first sign of trouble (the needles turned yellow) my wife took a saw to it.

My gosh. I'd better stay healthy.

.

Thanksgiving Day: I’m thankful for more than a few things Pt 3

I’m thankful (after spending a good chunk of time dusting furniture and vacuuming rugs this afternoon) that we live in a small house.

Gosh, the amount of stuff I had to wipe off was depressing. A bigger house might mean more stuff. So, small house - I’m done sooner.

I'm thankful my wife and I have a positive attitude about our future.




I’m thankful my youngest son is so considerate. He just called to ask if there was anything he could bring for after supper. He made a couple of tasty suggestions (“Chimay, or a trappist beer?”) and I said, sounds good.

I’m thankful that family members (from both sides) get along well together and bring much laughter into our home.

I’m thankful grandson Ollie is coming. I’ve dusted off every one of his train engines and cars. He can name every one. Thomas, Percy, Emily... the whole gang.

If you ever hear me complaining about my family give me a shake.

.

Something is definitely wrong with Canada’s economic model

This from the Sept. 12 issue of The London Free Press:

“The recession is confusing a lot of consumers who are told to save money for a rainy day but also are encouraged to spend to help boost the economy.

“It's a conundrum economists call "the paradox of thrift," which means too much savings can lead to an overall drop in consumption and threaten a nation's economic growth.”

So, should I save (which is almost the same as reducing my debt load - a very good thing) or buy that leaf blower so we can build more items we hardly need?


["All we need is love": Ollie and his dad]

Hmmmm.... sounds like an easy choice, doesn’t it?

Not when we live in a land with 60 - 100 years worth of materialistic momentum, and that wants to maintain an excessive lifestyle for as many as possible - for as long as possible.

Not when we live in a land that barely knows word one about conservation and preserving limited resources for future generations.

My recommendation:

Save your money. Reduce your personal or family debt. Live smaller each year.

Take quiet moments and think about how little you need to spend on stuff to be really happy.

Think about what rampant consumerism has done to your province, country, planet - besides fill your basement and garage with stuff you seldom use or need.

Live small and prosper.

.

Ollie and Me: The wee tad gets to pay for our collective folly

“Deficits today are deferred taxation,” said a spokesperson for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) recently.

(As reported in an article yesterday’s issue of the London Free Press)

Not that I agree with the CTF on all points, but it’s a fact we’re deferring or downloading a lot of debt onto the backs of future generations, including my favourite wee tad.

Our own federal Finance Minister, Jim Flatulence, says Canada will post a bigger deficit this year than projected and it will take longer than expected to return to balanced budgets.

How long? Mr. Flatulence says five years, but he’s been very wrong many, many times before.

For example:

“Unveiling a fiscal update Thursday, (he) said the government now expects to post a $55.9-billion deficit for the 2009-2010 fiscal year — up from the $50 billion he predicted in June and the $33.7 billion he predicted in his January budget.”


[“No more free rides, Ollie”: photo by Ollie’s mom]

“Instead of the $83.1-billion deficit he projected for the next five years in his budget with a return to surplus in 2013-2014, (he) is now projecting a $164.4-billion deficit over that period...”

The way we run and use our country needs an overhaul. An election is one thing, but our pursuit of a certain type of economy and lifestyle is another.

I recommend we pursue, at all costs, The Small Economy, one that is affordable, within our limited means, sustainable and eco-friendly.

Live small.

.