> Cost of land fertilizer transportation animals

My read of the parent’s comment is that you aren’t paying for land.

You don’t need store bought fertilizer. I had a garden for a few years and avoided manufactured fertilizer for most of it. At an industrial scale, sure, it is needed, but not at an individual garden level.

No transportation needed other than your own two feet or what you can build. It’s not like you need to go into work every day.

You don’t need to buy animals for food if you can hunt and trap.

I’m not suggesting I agree with the $100/month limit, but things on your list are considered luxuries to the plan. Remember, you’re shooting for “QOL of someone that lived in the American West a hundred years ago” which wasn’t all that great.

I think life in the 1920s, while having downsides, was a lot better than many people imagine.

I imagine many women would disagree. Or the people who just got back from WW1, and are about to send their kids to WW2.

Right, but staying on topic in terms of available material goods and income,

I don't think available goods and resources was as bad as this thread was making it out to be

Are antibiotics and vaccines and other healthcare “available material goods”?

I had two great grandmothers that lost the majority of their children as babies/toddlers.

I think a lot of people are not accounting for the costs of risks during that time. If everything went well, the rain was on time, no other nations attacked, no one fell ill, there were no birthing complications, then life was okay. But nature usually throws a few curveballs.

This is an empirical question that I feel you are trying to twist into a political one.

The sole question is can you on 100 dollars a month today live in a manner similar to what the average person in the 20s did

The empirical questions are what does 100 a month buy you today and what was the average lifestyle of a person in the 20s in terms of how much would it cost to buy that lifestyle today

Questions of how we got feminnism and better medicine since then is irrelevant and trying to distort a simple empirical analysis into a political one

Attempting to argue counterfactuals while negating the factors that occured to cause the world to exist in a particular state at a particular time isn't ever going to lead to a conversation you like.

The resource cost and availability that existed in 1920 were because of non-empirical decisions like politics and societies adaptations to new technologies. It's like you're taking a still frame of an avalanche and looking for a flat spot to build a foundation.

African Americans might also have something to say about how they were treatment during that time period. Still, you can't say that something hasn't been lost when previously, one person, working 9-5 M-F, including lunch, at a job that's not particularly spectacular, can provide a house, food, transportation, for two adults and multiple children, and if we look forwards a few decades, a college education for said children without lifelong crippling debt, and careers of their own.

I mean if you lucked out and were born wealthy in an urban area it was probably ok.

But half the population lived in urban areas and only half of those people had electricity. So 50:50 you end up on Schrute Farms with no electricity and an outhouse.

Not even mentioning race here.

That's possible, I'm not sure to be honest, I'd have to read more about rural life in turn of the century America to really form an opinion on this.

That is 9 years before great depression and right after WWI.

So, it is very shortly before economy goes boom and very shortly after everything literally went boom physically.

Is it possible to make a system that sustains itself? Right now I've got a worm farm going that produces viable compost pretty often, but the Berkely Method would be faster. I have four chickens that produce yards and yards of compost every 3 months and require about a cup of corn a day.

You'd need to scale the chicken operation to cover whatever your three month compost needs are and you'd need people to eat or use the eggs relatively quickly. You could produce, dry, and store the corn on site.

What am I missing?

> Is it possible to make a system that sustains itself?

Oh, definitely. We are doing it on a universal scale right now.

If you meant smaller than that, then what are you restrictions?

We really aren't doing that on any lasting timescale.

You can burn your furniture to stay warm, and congratulate yourself on how well you're doing. But it doesn't take long to run out of furniture.

The fact that "long" here means less than a century or so doesn't alter that point. It just turns it into a generational problem rather than an immediate personal one.

in fact more and more people are being affected by climate damage, food shortages, and pollution with lasting effects. But apparently most of suburbia won't notice until it starts happening there too.

Right now? Space to grow food. I grow tomatoes, lemons, basil, cucumbers, and strawberries in the basement. Most of that isn't good for chickens or worms, though. I'd need to scale my food production to a bigger variety for the system to feed itself so it does still take some input from me other than sweat equity.

The thing I started doing all of this for was renewable compost, though, so at least that goal is met. I also don't give away my yard trash anymore (leaves, clippings). They go into the compost piles and get spread across the yard a few months later. My question moreso centered around fertilizer - why do we keep needing synthetic fertilizer if we can produce renewable compost chains?

America had better tech except now everything is built to break otherwise the air backed monetary system would fall apart if planned obsolescence didn't exist.

The only reason costs are so high is because money can be printed at will so your savings will always be reduced.

Sadly most people don't learn anything about finance and think stocks and bonds are good investment vehicles and fractional reserve is great.

I guess if you go to a school that was designed to make you a factory worker then you will only learn how to be a worker and not the owner.

Can you elaborate more ? I am curious.

A good place you can start is looking at "The Country School of Tomorrow"

I found a 26 page book on archive org written in 1913 . Did you meant that book ?

Who is the writer? Do your own research and don't trust some idiot on the Internet to give you ideas