Ethics of working or not working for money

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:I didn't used to think so, but very recently I have decided that a "reset" is coming and it may happen way sooner than folks expect (possibly in both the US and Europe). It is a good time to prepare.

An insightful comment, Lucretia.

The debt collapse of 2008 was a reset.
A rude awakening from the subjective fantasy that debt is capital
to the objective reality that only capital is capital.

Debt today has surpassed pre 2008 levels.
How quickly people forget.
They will be reminded again.

in my state:

welfare only gives:
child care help for working moms and familys with low income
child support check to parents of those who don't receive one from the other parent, (they actively look for and garnish parents checks for this fund) you do not get it if your child's birth cert. doesn't have 2 parents listed.
energy assistance- they help pay a percent of your power bill if your low income
medical insurance- if your low to non-income(homeless)
food stamps- if your low to non-income(homeless)

social security is based on the income you put into it while yrs of working (most can not live/retire on it)
social security disability is based on how much you could of made at the current rate level of the last job you worked. until you can claim the regular ss.

here there are no companies that do internships or apprenticeships with pay. and only a few that do it for free labor.
and there are no companies that do retirement/pentions for yrs of work.(your expected to set up and pay into a 401k for retirement to go with your ss)
they replace you with younger people at less pay once you top out the highest scale rate.


I work full time plus OT. at the top of my pay rate, no going any higher available to me in my field.
can not afford food or medical insurance on top of my regular to live bills.
states to expensive. would be even worse once I get older and collect my ss check.
hence I'm selling my house and moving to a place where I can at least grow my own food and I wont starve...lol

Lucrecia Anderson wrote:

Jan White wrote: I'm not sure what it is, having never tried to articulate this before, maybe it's tied up with a need for status or rank, maybe it's just a selfishness, I don't know.  But instead of just eating their delicious piece of pie and being content, people have to look around and make sure no one else has a bigger piece of pie - or a different flavour!

I think it is more like picking fruit and making the dough to bake a pie for yourself, but realizing that every time you do more and more of your pie is taken away and given to strangers (and you have no say in it whatsoever, you don't even know who it is going to). It keeps happening until finally you are getting such a tiny piece it is no longer worth the effort of baking one at all.

Ha! I definitely get a sense of your frustration from that description!

It sounds like you think the way my friend does.

I can't justify a viewpoint like yours in my life. I'm well fed, clothed, warm, and sheltered. I can pay all my bills and still have a little left overe. I just can't see how I'm getting a smaller and smaller piece of pie when my life is good every year and often better than the one before.  Not everyone is as lucky.

Maybe the answer is a voluntary system.  The people that want to contribute to the government system of taxation and sending enormous,  ever- growing amounts of money to the nameless,  faceless population can do that,  and the people that think most of that money is being wasted  or abused can help people in their local communities that they know are actually in need through their local churches,  food banks,  goodwill stores and the like. That is a system i can get on board with.  

Mark Tudor wrote:

I don't see this as any indication of a problem. All it reveals is the truth that everyone in America is personally free to rise economically to the level of their time energy and abilities. The 1% can't prevent me from working to secure my own economic independence and enjoying my own life.

If people want equality they will have to give up their liberty in order to get it... for those two are mutually exclusive. In my opinion, enjoying personal liberty is far better than state enforced equality could ever be.

And by the way... that map ignores the fact that the Federal government owns 28% of the land in the US! (lol)

bernetta putnam wrote:here there are no companies that do internships or apprenticeships with pay. and only a few that do it for free labor.
and there are no companies that do retirement/pentions for yrs of work.(your expected to set up and pay into a 401k for retirement to go with your ss)
they replace you with younger people at less pay once you top out the highest scale rate.


I work full time plus OT. at the top of my pay rate, no going any higher available to me in my field.
can not afford food or medical insurance on top of my regular to live bills.
states to expensive. would be even worse once I get older and collect my ss check.
hence I'm selling my house and moving to a place where I can at least grow my own food and I wont starve...lol

Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:In a perfect world I think everyone's basic needs...food, shelter and health care, should (can't think of another word but 'should') could be met.

Do you know of an appropriate response to people who think people should work for those things?  To me it seems like people are saying everyone should work because everyone should work, not because they need to or that it somehow harms society if they don't.

I think you two have perfectly summarized why I have stayed the hell out of this thread so far! ;-)

One of the things that is easy to forget about permaculture is that it's an ideology of abundance.  I will never run out of time for Geoff Lawton because he never stops emphasizing this.  Bill Mollison was also very good about reminding us of it at every opportunity.  

We live in a culture where the word "work" means a number of different things.  This thread is about "working for money" which in my view is a relatively modern oddity.  Prior to the industrial revolution, working for money was a pretty rare event.  Money itself was a thing most folks in the laboring classes never even saw.  For one reason and another -- mostly involving the interests of classes of people whose "work" does not involve sweat or bad smells -- our culture has stood "working for money" up on a marble column and imbued it with ethical significance, to the point where a bunch of smart people of good will can seriously argue about whether you are a bad person if you somehow arrange your life so that by means of reduced consumption self-production or otherwise you don't need to work for money.  Whereas it strikes me that a central message of permaculture is that working for money is more like an eccentric hobby.  Earth care, people care, return of surplus -- if you've nailed those three and you still have time left over to go somewhere and work at a job, good on ya, mate! But it's perfectly reasonable to squat on your land and go "how can I build systems here that meet my needs and the needs of my loved ones and the needs of my neighbors and the needs of my community...?" and just keep building those systems outwards (or upwards in resilience) as your surpluses allow.  

Dan Boone wrote:  This thread is about "working for money" which in my view is a relatively modern oddity.

This might be even more strange.
I work to fulfill the purpose of serving others.
Money is a consequence of answering that call.

Greg Mamishian wrote:I work to fulfill the purpose of serving others. Money is a consequence of answering that call.

It seems to me: that depends entirely upon who you choose to serve.

Dan, I'm so glad you've joined the fun
...and that you brought permaculture into the discussion.

I think this thread is emphasizing for me just how interconnected we all are.  
What we do or don't do plays such an integral part in the universe and has ripple effects beyond our vision.
I feel that money and politics and religion are a distraction from what I think of as our real purpose...to make the world a better place.
I am frustrated that there are homeless and hungry people in this world and at the noticeable effects of climate change.
We have a long way to go to achieve " Earth care, people care, return of surplus"

Dan Boone wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Judith Browning wrote:In a perfect world I think everyone's basic needs...food, shelter and health care, should (can't think of another word but 'should') could be met.

Do you know of an appropriate response to people who think people should work for those things?  To me it seems like people are saying everyone should work because everyone should work, not because they need to or that it somehow harms society if they don't.

I think you two have perfectly summarized why I have stayed the hell out of this thread so far!

One of the things that is easy to forget about permaculture is that it's an ideology of abundance.  I will never run out of time for Geoff Lawton because he never stops emphasizing this.  Bill Mollison was also very good about reminding us of it at every opportunity.  

We live in a culture where the word "work" means a number of different things.  This thread is about "working for money" which in my view is a relatively modern oddity.  Prior to the industrial revolution, working for money was a pretty rare event.  Money itself was a thing most folks in the laboring classes never even saw.  For one reason and another -- mostly involving the interests of classes of people whose "work" does not involve sweat or bad smells -- our culture has stood "working for money" up on a marble column and imbued it with ethical significance, to the point where a bunch of smart people of good will can seriously argue about whether you are a bad person if you somehow arrange your life so that by means of reduced consumption self-production or otherwise you don't need to work for money.  Whereas it strikes me that a central message of permaculture is that working for money is more like an eccentric hobby.  Earth care, people care, return of surplus -- if you've nailed those three and you still have time left over to go somewhere and work at a job, good on ya, mate! But it's perfectly reasonable to squat on your land and go "how can I build systems here that meet my needs and the needs of my loved ones and the needs of my neighbors and the needs of my community...?" and just keep building those systems outwards (or upwards in resilience) as your surpluses allow.  

I love to boil off the dross of emotion that often impedes discussion like this by muddying the waters.

One day my daughter asked if she could do anything to earn some money, so I gave her a few things to do around the house and said if she did them, she would earn $5. When she was done I gave her $5 one dollar bills, but then told her to give two of those one dollar bills to her two sisters.

She was incensed, saying they did not do anything to earn it. That is when I explained to her how the welfare system in this country works.

My ten year old got the concept really quickly.

One thing we have in this house is something called the "Daddy Tax". When one of my daughters comes in with something, I will invoke the daddy tax system, which just means they have to give up a portion of it. It typically is a just a bite, like yesterday one of my daughters came home with a brownie from one of their teachers at school. I had a bite of it, invoking the Daddy Tax Rule.

This has turned into conversations about how the tax system works, how it is mandatory, yet not malicious. It teaches my kids to expect to give a portion of things up even though they like them. This means taxes, but also giving to the church we attend, giving to people who are in need.

It is actually an honor to pay taxes, for that is how all of modern civilization runs, BUT it has to also be kept in check.

Trace Oswald wrote:Maybe the answer is a voluntary system.  The people that want to contribute to the government system of taxation and sending enormous,  ever- growing amounts of money to the nameless,  faceless population can do that,  and the people that think most of that money is being wasted  or abused can help people in their local communities that they know are actually in need through their local churches,  food banks,  goodwill stores and the like. That is a system i can get on board with.  

I'm not defending the US welfare system- but depending on charitable giving is a recipe for grotesque inequalities in support for those in need. The principle that support should be based on need, rather than on who you know, is laudable. When your ability to live becomes dependent on whether your local church considers you "worthy" of support there will inevitably be marginalised people for whom support is unavailable, or for whom the support comes with unacceptable strings attached. Religious organisations don't have the best reputation for acting ethically when there is the opportunity to save a sinner at stake. Consider the recent case of the American christian missionary who invaded the island of the Sentinelese - known to kill outsiders on sight, and potentially exposing them to devastating diseases for which they have no immunity. Ethics and legality played no part in those actions. https://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/article222346895.html.

Michael Cox wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:Maybe the answer is a voluntary system.  The people that want to contribute to the government system of taxation and sending enormous,  ever- growing amounts of money to the nameless,  faceless population can do that,  and the people that think most of that money is being wasted  or abused can help people in their local communities that they know are actually in need through their local churches,  food banks,  goodwill stores and the like. That is a system i can get on board with.  

I'm not defending the US welfare system- but depending on charitable giving is a recipe for grotesque inequalities in support for those in need. The principle that support should be based on need, rather than on who you know, is laudable. When your ability to live becomes dependent on whether your local church considers you "worthy" of support there will inevitably be marginalised people for whom support is unavailable, or for whom the support comes with unacceptable strings attached. Religious organisations don't have the best reputation for acting ethically when there is the opportunity to save a sinner at stake. Consider the recent case of the American christian missionary who invaded the island of the Sentinelese - known to kill outsiders on sight, and potentially exposing them to devastating diseases for which they have no immunity. Ethics and legality played no part in those actions. https://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/article222346895.html.

I agree with you completely.

Michael Cox wrote:
I'm not defending the US welfare system- but depending on charitable giving is a recipe for grotesque inequalities in support for those in need. The principle that support should be based on need, rather than on who you know, is laudable. When your ability to live becomes dependent on whether your local church considers you "worthy" of support there will inevitably be marginalised people for whom support is unavailable, or for whom the support comes with unacceptable strings attached.

It is a well documented fact that people generally are more willing to give to those that they know and have a history/share things in common with. Typically small communities share much more to help those in need and they do it WILLINGLY. Even if people do not know the individuals directly, if they know the people doing the collecting there is a trust factor there.

When you are forced to share with nameless people that changes things and for GOOD REASON! Because chances are most of it is in fact being misused in some way and not necessarily by the poor recipients, but by the strangers that are collecting/handling the money (in the form of salaries, signing up people that don't need it, wasting the money for political or bureaucratic reasons etc...)

Money is power, and the bigger the enterprise the more corruption becomes a huge problem.

Ideally we'd all know our neighbors and be able to help each other out, but unfortunately the current trend is for most people to move to the impersonal city.  I think it's very difficult to avoid bureaucratic messes in this situation.  I think working toward permacultural communities in both the country and the city is a solution (though not immediate) to this problem of anonymity and bureaucracy.

Trace Oswald wrote: can help people in their local communities that they know are actually in need through their local churches,  food banks,  goodwill stores and the like. That is a system i can get on board with.  

Me too! I think that's an excellent idea. I've often thought that there could be a way of helping socially other than paying taxes. A person could choose whether they give their time or their money to the community. Or both.

Time banks are an example of this idea. I was a member of a timebank once and it was great until the goverment decided it was "gray labour" and wanted to put a tax on it... sigh... most members lost interest in it. We actually did have a "tax" system on our timebank, too. A certain percentage of the hours you worked was subtracted and these extra hours were donated to charities. Ie. the charities could "hire" people to help them and the charity didn't have to work in return (makes sense since it was doing charitable work already )

We could take the idea and structure of time banks and turn it into a voluntary system of contributing to the welfare of others. With today's software it's easy to arrange. People log on to the program stating their needs. Then others can choose what they decide to do and the system takes care of confirmation and stops double-bookings and such problems. The system keeps track of how many hours each has contributed. The contributions are confirmed by the recipients of help.

we could take the idea and structure of time banks and turn it into a voluntary system of contributing to the welfare of others. With today's software it's easy to arrange. People log on to the program stating their needs. Then others can choose what they decide to do and the system takes care of confirmation and stops double-bookings and such problems. The system keeps track of how many hours each has contributed. The contributions are confirmed by the recipients of help.

I like this line of thinking!

There are discussions here (somewhere?) about 'gifting economies' that I think relate to this approach.

Dan Boone wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:I work to fulfill the purpose of serving others. Money is a consequence of answering that call.

It seems to me: that depends entirely upon who you choose to serve.

It certainly does, Dan.

I've worked in my own business for 40 years so I get to choose who I serve. Business is a way to put ethical values to practical use.

Fundamentally the problem with any kind of non-monetary time bank is that they are trying to do what money does well - store value in an easily exchanged medium - but less effectively.

If my hourly rate is £20, and I am a skilled plumber, then in theory an hour of my time is worth £20. But it is only worth £20 to someone who want a plumber. It is worth substantially less to someone whose pipes are in good repair, but really needs to know that they will have enough bread to eat each week. If I give an hour of my time to a bank that is simply less valuable than me giving £20 direct to the person who needs it.

I have mentioned this book before, elsewhere in this forum "Poor Economics". It uses modern statistical and scientific methods measure the various impacts of interventions to help the poor. One of the interventions that has the greatest positive impacts is the most simple - a direct cash transfer with no strings attached. In general I think these conversations about financial ethics - both here on permies and elsewhere - tend to be high on idealism and low on evidence. And the evidence is often directly contrary to what we naively imagine it to be.

I think time banks work better when people don't do what their profession is, but something more general. Like taking care of elderly people, washing windows, babysitting, helping in picking and bottling fruits, etc. In our time bank everyone's hour was considered to be of same value.

In my thinking, time bank -like systems would not replace money, they would just supplement monetary systems.

The best things in time banks are in my opinion that 1) they connect people with people, helping to reduce loneliness and mental health problems. 2) they help people meet new people
3) they enable those who don't have much money (and who therefore cannot pay much taxes) to do something too, be a valuable member of society, be of service to others even though you cannot give money. Point 3 was for me personally what I loved most about our time bank.

I think that donating your time and receiving help from volunteers will mostly be of interest to those with time on their hands but not much money. For the skilled professional with a full time job / enterprise the idea is probably less appealing. They are more likely to want to pay their taxes in money and pay for services such as babysitting and cleaning.

The world is changing however and there are more and more people with part-time or temporary jobs. I think these are the people who benefit most from time banks and who also have time to give to them.

The only real problem I came across in the time bank was that sometimes a person is short of both time and money but at other times, perhaps a few years later, the same person might have lots of time on their hands. The time frame of the time bank was a bit too short, in other words :-) Take parents of small children for instance. When the kids are small they often don't have any spare time and money is tight too. When the kids go to school, the parents have a lot more time. Even more so when the kids leave the nest.

It would be nice if one could get the help when it's needed and pay it back later in life. Get a loan from the time bank, not the money bank :-)

To be honest, I think the money issue itself is a side thing. Or, rather, unimportant. Money is the easiest way in today's society to be able to get value for what you can produce and exchange it for what you cannot.

The work, though, that's the kicker. I think the big thing that I have an issue with as far as the dude who sits around playing video games on welfare is this - I feel strongly that everyone should (yes, I said should! LOL) work to support themselves and their families within their abilities.

Therein lies the reason why the aforementioned welfare gamer is so irritating - because welfare gamer is completely capable of supporting himself, but chooses to force others to support him instead.

This is also why it's not irritating to, say, help someone who is in need, or care for an ailing relative. This is why I happily wiped my grandma's butt in her last year of life and I didn't resent it one bit.

I think MOST people are not selfish. Most people would choose to help others in need out of their own abundance. Most people, however, also do not want to be forced to help someone who is just being lazy and doesn't really need the help.

Count me as someone who has had firsthand experience at the absolute rubbish that this mentality creates. The children of these "welfare lifestyle" parents once grown, often have absolutely no concept of a life where they are entirely able to provide for themselves. Not because they are incapable, but they haven't even really been exposed to it. Kinda like... you don't know what you don't know. We tend to emulate what we knew, and how we grew up. So it continues on, for generations and generations, where people relegate themselves to a poverty lifestyle where they don't have to work to provide for themselves, and often because they simply have been conditioned to think this is how it's done.

This also is why I absolutely have no problem helping someone who is doing their best within their own ability but due to some real, legitimate reason perhaps cannot support themselves. I really feel like this is a huge part of how much of a loss the "village" is because even if we all work to sustain ourselves and our families, I don't think we were intended to do it alone. This is where the village would come in - so perhaps where someone who was injured and unable to work out in the fields anymore could contribute by childcare, handcrafts, logistics, and so forth.

As far as pertaining to permaculture - the way I see it is the abundance thing. I work to support myself, take care of my family, and hopefully create an abundance to further what I am trying to do (IE, saving up funds so I can make big improvements on my land, or help jumpstart my kids in their own lives, etc) as well as have said abundance to give back to those in need.

I do have to admit I am also surprised that many people seem to have no issue with the welfare gamer. I realize that the corporate elite are a huge issue, but I guess to me that's a separate issue from the ethics of working or nor working for money.

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

bernetta putnam wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

I have started and done well with 3 separate businesses, all started with no money,  and all done in my spare time.  I'll give you one example.  When I was younger, I would go to the local dump and find things that people had thrown away that were no longer working.  Lots of times these were appliances. I would fix them, clean them up,  and sell them in the local penny- saver newspaper.  It would be even easier now.  With Craigslist and local buy- sell- trade sites,  you can reach far more customers,  far more easily.   For free.  If you don't know how to fix something, YouTube is happy to teach you. For free.  You can also post an ad that you will do shopping and run errands for people that can't or don't drive.  Service businesses can almost always be started with little or no money.  Clean houses.  Do landscaping.  I have two friends that make very good livings running day care in their homes.

Some things are certainties in my mind.  One is that you could look at those ideas,  pick them apart,  and find reasons all of them are bad and won't work for you.  Another is that people i personally know have and are making money doing all of them.  If someone suggests that you start a business and you immediate scoff at the idea as impossible,  there is a very good chance that in 5 years,  you'll be in the exact position you are now.  To paraphrase a saying i once heard,  if you think you can do something,  you're right.  If you think you can't do something,  you're right.

Trace Oswald wrote:

bernetta putnam wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

I have started and done well with 3 separate businesses, all started with no money,  and all done in my spare time.  I'll give you one example.  When I was younger, I would go to the local dump and find things that people had thrown away that were no longer working.  Lots of times these were appliances. I would fix them, clean them up,  and sell them in the local penny- saver newspaper.  It would be even easier now.  With Craigslist and local buy- sell- trade sites,  you can reach far more customers,  far more easily.   For free.  If you don't know how to fix something, YouTube is happy to teach you. For free.  You can also post an ad that you will do shopping and run errands for people that can't or don't drive.  Service businesses can almost always be started with little or no money.  Clean houses.  Do landscaping.  I have two friends that make very good livings running day care in their homes.

Some things are certainties in my mind.  One is that you could look at those ideas,  pick them apart,  and find reasons all of them are bad and won't work for you.  Another is that people i personally know have and are making money doing all of them.  If someone suggests that you start a business and you immediate scoff at the idea as impossible,  there is a very good chance that in 5 years,  you'll be in the exact position you are now.  To paraphrase a saying i once heard,  if you think you can do something,  you're right.  If you think you can't do something,  you're right.

those are good ideas to making more money on the side, ill have to look around here where I live and see what I can come up with in my spare time to do.
thanks

bernetta putnam wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:

bernetta putnam wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

I have started and done well with 3 separate businesses, all started with no money,  and all done in my spare time.  I'll give you one example.  When I was younger, I would go to the local dump and find things that people had thrown away that were no longer working.  Lots of times these were appliances. I would fix them, clean them up,  and sell them in the local penny- saver newspaper.  It would be even easier now.  With Craigslist and local buy- sell- trade sites,  you can reach far more customers,  far more easily.   For free.  If you don't know how to fix something, YouTube is happy to teach you. For free.  You can also post an ad that you will do shopping and run errands for people that can't or don't drive.  Service businesses can almost always be started with little or no money.  Clean houses.  Do landscaping.  I have two friends that make very good livings running day care in their homes.

Some things are certainties in my mind.  One is that you could look at those ideas,  pick them apart,  and find reasons all of them are bad and won't work for you.  Another is that people i personally know have and are making money doing all of them.  If someone suggests that you start a business and you immediate scoff at the idea as impossible,  there is a very good chance that in 5 years,  you'll be in the exact position you are now.  To paraphrase a saying i once heard,  if you think you can do something,  you're right.  If you think you can't do something,  you're right.

those are good ideas to making more money on the side, ill have to look around here where I live and see what I can come up with in my spare time to do.
thanks

I hope you find something you enjoy and you can make some money doing it.  You may find that you can make enough money with your side business that you can quit your other job. Another quick tip is to check the free section of Craigslist.  You'll find a lot of junk,  but some of the things can be refinished or fixed and sold.

I wish you well.

bernetta putnam wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

Sorry, I have no idea, Bernetta. I'm only a stranger and it was just an idea. I mentioned it because although I'm 70, I started another small side business from one of my hobbies and it cost me absolutely nothing because it's a service I offer... something I can do to help others that they can't do themselves.

I repair failed septic systems. My clients pay for the materials and what I get paid for my labor is my profit. I've never spent even one penny on advertizing. I just told folks about my service and hosted "Sewer Tours" of my own system until someone hired me in total panic because they had smelly sewage overflowing onto the ground. Even though they would pay me absolutely anything to make it go away, I didn't take advantage of them and gave them a good deal for their money. Once I repaired the first client's septic system, they were so happy and grateful for solving their problem, they told their friends and neighbors and I've been getting more business without even trying.

I call this concept microbusiness. It's just one guy offering to do something to help others by solving their problems and making their lives better. The service could be absolutely anything. Everyone can do something for others that they can't do for themselves. Simply find out what it is and do it.

Trace Oswald wrote:
Some things are certainties in my mind.  One is that you could look at those ideas,  pick them apart,  and find reasons all of them are bad and won't work for you.  Another is that people i personally know have and are making money doing all of them.  If someone suggests that you start a business and you immediate scoff at the idea as impossible,  there is a very good chance that in 5 years,  you'll be in the exact position you are now.  To paraphrase a saying i once heard,  if you think you can do something,  you're right.  If you think you can't do something,  you're right.

I love how you put that!

Bernetta - a bit off topic, but something you could also do with no investment is some sort of service. Especially if you have access to internet, there are lots of ways you can market yourself. I have a business but I don't have time to do all the admin myself so I literally have a woman I pay to be my virtual assistant - often she's just doing basic data entry admin type stuff. I also pay her to Pinterest for me. Everything is on her timeline, she works when she has time, and it's a win-win. Lots of other small entrepreneurs out there who could use someone to do that stuff as well.

Even if admin stuff isn't your skill set, there may be some skill sets that you can translate into a service based business where you don't need to buy any equipment/materials/etc to get started.

bernetta putnam wrote:

Greg Mamishian wrote:
Bernetta, have you considered going into business for yourself?

would luv to have a business , but, where's this startup money going to come from? and where's the money I currently make going to come from while I'm busy starting up my no income business?
I cant afford food and doctors now. nice dream though...lol

You start with nothing, that is the best formula for success.

A man and his wife that are now in their 80's, runs a cowboy camp to show cowboys across the USA tricks of the trade, really a trade college for ranching. The man has thousands and thousands of acres, but actually started out in MO working the stockyards shoveling out pens. He bartered for his first steer, traded it for a few more, and has gone on to build a legagy.

Sure, someone might be saying, one of the lucky ones...

No, not at all. I started in 2008 with sheep when the Government gave us a silly $600 as a stimulus to get the economy going. While many wasted it on TV's and other junk, I used that cowboy's ideas and bought (4) sheep and some fence to hold them in. 11 Years later, those four sheep have turned into hundreds, I have recieved an additional $47,000 in farm grants alone, bought hundreds of acres of land...all in 11 years. How...all by the Compound Effect.

But what if you do not have a farm? (or insert some sort of business here)

Lamenting about it is not going to help. Neither is going to traditional sources to get funding. How many times have you cruised out through rural areas and knocked on doors aquiring about abandonded farm houses? Most of the time people WANT the houses occupied, but people want the white picket fence and the updated kitchen with washer and dryer. The house I am typing this now on, was abandonded for 10 years and I could not find anyone to live in it for free. I tried, numerous times, but they could not see through the clutter or would not want to do the work to fix it up.

If it sounds like I am harsh on you, please, please, please do not think that, I am just pleading with you, for your own good, do not get into the silly American mindset that all the world would just be right if there was just more money. I am telling everyone, be creative.