So I was thinking, would I really be interested in a true minimalist living?
Images of living freely in a trailer in a nice country side flooded my mind. Hey it isn't so bad. There's nothing much to think of. I don't need to pay property tax, I may have some investments and I live off the returns or maybe I'll take up some part time job somewhere. I'll be living simply.
It's really quite a romantic idea, looking at the stars and living within a small community.
So I was thinking... what's the difference between this... below... and further below...
https://femsplain.com/trailer-park-girl-456a287ea4c1
And this...
https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/how-does-poor-needy-spore-families-survive-miserly-300-monthly-comcare-aid
It's a stark difference isn't it?
What constitutes living minimally vs being poor?
The idea is pretty much the same... basically, both situations entail living on less. Much much less.
I suppose the greatest difference is "choice"...
Usually, being a minimalist is an active choice taken by the individual or family.
Whereas being poor is typically regarded as an unfortunate situation. Usually, no one chooses to be poor.
And yet although it is supposedly a small difference, the living standard usually differs by a large amount.
If I am in Singapore, and live in a 1 room flat, with a single fan, no TV, no internet, no phone, cooking using a portable stove, with just enough clothes to go to work. There would be no doubt that people would think I was poor. Cos typically, in Singapore, no one chooses to live like that.
Whereas if I'm in Australia and I lived in an RV or trailer, I might be living in the same situation, but some people might think it is fun and I'm living a minimalist and free lifestyle.
Total expenditure per month could be similar.
Does it all boil down to "options and choices"?
If I lived in a big country, I could go to a quiet countryside to live. There is no countryside in Singapore. Even if I want to camp at East Coast Park, I need a camping permit.
There are stories of minimal living in other countries. It is usually a choice by the individuals. In Singapore, no one lives in a one room flat, unless they are on government assistance. So usually, no one in Singapore would want to live in the conditions I mentioned above.
Or is it that the poor, they are trying to do what normal people do with less resources.
Whereas for a minimalist, they aren't trying to do what normal people do with less.
They consciously want less than the normal person and they work well with less resources.
Or maybe it is just a perception?
If I sold all my stuff, leaving only a single fan, no TV, with just enough clothes to go to work, but I want to retain my internet and phone. We could squeeze all of these into the master bedroom. I would have no fridge or washing machine. I would not cook at home, cos eating downstairs would be cheaper.
Then I rent out my other 2 bedrooms.
What would other people think?
Definitely no one would think I am a minimalist. My parents and friends would likely ask me if I was OK. Do I need help? etc etc...
But yet if I did that in a trailer in another country, my parents wouldn't bother much about it. It would have probably been brushed off as a choice I made.
Ok, I'm not trying to downplay poverty or being poor.
There are some people whom I think really need help/assistance cos they are a prisoner of circumstances.
But there are others whom I think are a prisoner of their own choices and for those... I think they just need to wake up.
There are people living in real poverty and it IS a serious situation which I think they need someway to climb out of.
Rather, I would like to put across a different perspective of where the line is drawn. Are people considered poor because they want to do more things, own more things but they cannot afford it? What if they have low income but they live a minimalist lifestyle, so they feel that they are not "missing" anything in life? Then are they considered poor?
Is it because a minimalist can choose to live a non-poor lifestyle, then he gets to call himself a minimalist?
What if a poor person chooses to take up a lower paying job when he/she can easily obtain a job which pays more? Is this considered being poor does he need assistance?
Like, if a average person, who is fairly educated, doesn't have much savings, but he works in a low paying job and lives a minimalist lifestyle...
Similarly, what if the same person, who is fairly educated, doesn't have much savings, he works in a low paying job and tries to live a normal lifestyle and fails cos "money not enough"...
Same situation but we call it differently? One scenario is considered a minimalist and yet the same guy in the same situation is called poor due to his choices?
Doesn't sound reasonable to me.
I've no answers here. I'm sorry if you expected answers. LOL
It just came across to me as kinda thought provoking. Cos... it seems like the difference between them is a fine line between choices and perception, what one person views as being poor might be deemed as just being a minimalist.
Once again, please take this in the spirit of thinking from a different perspective.
As I said, there are people who are in an unfortunate situation due to circumstances and I think they do require assistance to get back up again, cos they might be stuck in a vicious cycle. This post is not intended to mock them.
<<PREVIOUS POST // NEXT POST>>
Did you like this post? If so, could you "blanjah" me 1/4 cup of my morning coffee pls.
Many thanks for continuing to come to this blog to read my posts.