Gyroscopic Investing

dualstow wrote: Doodle, you live in a rock solid house, but I wonder if we can easily provide such a rock solid house for everyone. I've gushed about the cathedrals on this forum before (literally built of rock), but somehow I don't see a surge in stone mason hiring instead of IT professionals. It's all about economy, unfortunately. Things used to be built of better stuff because we hadn't yet invented the cheaper stuff. You can buy a computer mouse carved out of ash wood instead of plastic, but it will always be a niche market. There's a reason for that.

Three words: 3D concrete printer.


Speaking of that, how's your house coming, Doodle?

Remember when we all were far less civilized and thought a simple cup was good enough?

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/9 ... igital-cup

I've got two sets of plans drawn up and I'm debating on which to implement.

The first is a traditional 3/2 at about 1400 square feet. It's a nice house and would be an easy sell as my neighborhood is really becoming a popular place to live as it is located in a blossoming downtown urban area.

The second plan is for a 700 square foot house that I would build at the back of the property where the garage would normally go. It would essentially be a studio apartment house. I would leave the main portion of the property open so that when/if I sell it a future buyer would have room to build a more traditional house if they so desired. My house could then easily be converted into a large two car garage. Or, possibly the type of small house I am building will actually be very popular in the future and an easy sale.

I really, really, really, don't want to take on a lot of debt and have to spend more of my precious time working a job that I don't get a lot of fulfillment out of to pay for a lot of house that my minimalist lifestyle doesn't require, so I'm currently leaning towards the second plan.

The question is whether the city will give me the permit for the small house. I'm thinking I might have to submit plans for both structures to the city and once issued a permit begin construction on the smaller garage structure first. Once that is done I will simply tell the city I ran out of money. This fellow in Hawaii did something very similar to what I am thinking of doing. http://youtu.be/wxGr9uloL9k

Pointedstick wrote: Three words: 3D concrete printer.

A few years ago, I saw an article about a cement extruder for mass producing homes in Mexico. They were going to run it along a train track. Not sure whether they implemented it or not.

Tyler wrote: Remember when we all were far less civilized and thought a simple cup was good enough?

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/9 ... igital-cup

Perfect example!

I see a lot of this new tech stuff going into cars now that have all sorts of fancy electronic flip up display panels (just ready to malfunction and break) and complicated sensors and monitors and entertainment systems everywhere. I wonder how long these systems will be relevant and will function. Judging by the average life of a computer...about five years before they are tossed in a landfill.

Long gone are the days when cars would be passed on from father to son.

doodle wrote: The second plan is for a 700 square foot house that I would build at the back of the property where the garage would normally go. It would essentially be a studio apartment house. I would leave the main portion of the property open so that when/if I sell it a future buyer would have room to build a more traditional house if they so desired. My house could then easily be converted into a large two car garage. Or, possibly the type of small house I am building will actually be very popular in the future and an easy sale.

Cool idea (and video).  I've been fascinated lately by the tiny house phenomenon (often built on wheels to circumvent the zoning laws), and yours is an interesting take on the same idea.  Just the whole idea of approaching the "system" differently is really inspirational.

dualstow wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Three words: 3D concrete printer.

A few years ago, I saw an article about a cement extruder for mass producing homes in Mexico. They were going to run it along a train track. Not sure whether they implemented it or not.

I am highly supportive of technology that makes the essentials of life (food, clothing, shelter) easier and more affordable to produce. As long as the product is designed to have a long life span so that one doesn't have to rebuild their house every five years on account of its shoddiness, this kind of labor saving innovation is great.

Tyler wrote:

doodle wrote: The second plan is for a 700 square foot house that I would build at the back of the property where the garage would normally go. It would essentially be a studio apartment house. I would leave the main portion of the property open so that when/if I sell it a future buyer would have room to build a more traditional house if they so desired. My house could then easily be converted into a large two car garage. Or, possibly the type of small house I am building will actually be very popular in the future and an easy sale.

Cool idea (and video).  I've been fascinated lately by the tiny house phenomenon (often built on wheels to circumvent the zoning laws), and yours is an interesting take on the same idea.  Just the whole idea of approaching the "system" differently is really inspirational.

I think the 100 square foot tiny houses are a bit extreme, but I think that a house of about 700 to 800 square feet is a perfect size for a single person or a couple. I really think that the downsizing of houses in America is a trend that will continue to grow in popularity.

I'm also a fan of this patchwork type of construction that allows one to construct what they need yet easily expand living space for a growing family. It also allows a lot of privacy between the spaces even though the total square footage isn't massive.

http://www.freegreen.com/Plan-OverView- ... -Plan.aspx

I think you should build the 700 square foot house. You'r right, it would be perfect for a single person or a couple. My wife and I lived in a 600 sf apartment for years with no trouble, and now that we have a kid, we live in a 1100 sf house that feels gigantic to me. I can't imagine ever needing more space than we currently have, and could easily get by with less, seeing as the master bathroom is a wreck so we've only been using the other one (tacked onto the endless list of projects...).

IMHO, the absolute best decision you can make is to spend a smaller amount, build something more durable and maintenance-free, and then stop caring care about the resale value. Somebody will see the value and buy it. I guarantee you. And if nobody does and you would have to sell it for $10k less than the inflation-adjusted value of what you paid to have it built? Who cares! You just live there as long as you want, enhanced by the fact that since you didn't sink as much cash into it, we were able to reach financial independence sooner.

Or how about this: scrap the plans, keep working, and then, once you reach FI, provide a bunch of the labor yourself to build the house, specially choosing materials and styles that are easy to DIY (dry-stack blocks with surface-bonding cement applied to both sides, for example--totally code-compliant and you can do it yourself). The cost savings from that kind of activity directly translate into a lower risk of people not seeing the value of the house and lowballing you.

The challenge is gaining the experience necessary to be able to do this, especially while still working at a non-construction job. My own personal plan is to gain said experience on a "starter house"--hence my current fixer-upper. It's not a starter house in that I plan to "upgrade" to something bigger and more budget-busting; more that it's a learning experience for the 3D printed castle I'm going to build someday.

TennPaGa wrote:

dualstow wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Three words: 3D concrete printer.

A few years ago, I saw an article about a cement extruder for mass producing homes in Mexico.

One word: China.

http://mashable.com/2014/04/28/3d-print ... ses-china/

Oh yes, they are already doing it. The machine is crude, as are the houses, which will be chilly and damp--just like all uninsulated masonry houses. It's one thing to make a house out of concrete. It's quite another to make a house out of concrete with perfect control layers. There is no reason why a 3D printer cannot do this with the addition of only a second material: extrudable/sprayable polyurethane foam. The next step beyond that is using a site-prepared cob mixture with a tiny bit of added cement, which would dramatically lower the materials cost.

We're living in the future, folks.

Many shipping container home designs are also awesome, with a bit of modern flair.

http://tinyurl.com/o3gkovk

[quote=doodle]I see a lot of this new tech stuff going into cars now that have all sorts of fancy electronic flip up display panels (just ready to malfunction and break) and complicated sensors and monitors and entertainment systems everywhere. I wonder how long these systems will be relevant and will function. Judging by the average life of a computer...about five years before they are tossed in a landfill.

Long gone are the days when cars would be passed on from father to son.[/quote]

Doodle, cars are FAR FAR more reliable and much safer today then they were 50 years ago.  Back then, when a car hit 100,000 miles it was an event!  Today 100,000 miles is hardly noteworthy.  And to paraphrase HB, cars are a consumer item, not an heirloom.

Five years for a computer?  Five years for just about any consumer item is damn good.  My kids received a Super Nintendo many, many years ago for Christmas (almost 20 years ago, if I recall correctly).  They (in their late 20s/early 30s) still drag the thing out occasionally and it works great.  I don't think my Lincoln Logs were as durable!

Having choices in what we buy, use, eat, etc. is amazing.  Having a washing machine that lasts five years (if that is all you can afford) is better than no washing machine.  Having "disposable" furniture from Ikea is better than RAC rip offs.  These choices are empowering but require some due diligence on the part of the consumer.  It would certainly be possible to furnish your home and clothe yourself via thrift stores, and end up with some high-quality stuff.  That is another choice our consumer society offers.

Choice is empowering.

Jacobs recent article over at ERE on clotheslines fits into the original theme of this thread:

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/clotheslines.html

Interesting.  I do not recall seeing a clothesline anywhere in my neighborhood.  I will have to check the CC&Rs to see if outdoor clothes drying is "illegal".

Of course you could save nearly 100% of the cost of doing the laundry with a wash tub and wash board (or a nearby creek and a rock).

[quote=Jacob] I usually wash cotton slacks and denim jeans every 5-7 days as they don’t get dirty in an office environment.[/quote]

That seems an excessive laundry cycle for jeans.  I doubt I wash mine more than twice a month.

We bought a front-loading washing machine many years ago.  It uses very little water and a load of clothes takes about a tablespoon of store-brand detergent.  For dress shirts the dryer has a cycle called "Line Dry" that runs a very short time, leaving the shirts somewhat moist.  They get hung up and air dry the rest of the way with little if any wrinkling.

doodle wrote: Jacobs recent article over at ERE on clotheslines fits into the original theme of this thread:

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/clotheslines.html

Coincidentally here's a recent article on the social history of laundry and washing lines (actually quite interesting)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ne-laundry

Looking at the ERE article washing at 60 C seems way high I mostly wash at 20 C, the UV from line drying kills off anything still lurking.
My run of the mill washer's energy consumption per wash is 0.16 kWh @ 20C , 1 kWh @ 60C, 2.3 kWh @ 90C , so at about a tenth of the energy 20C is plenty good enough.

Why does the energy use of your washer change with temperature?

doodle wrote: Why does the energy use of your washer change with temperature?

European front loader, only has a cold water inlet that draws minimal amount of water in then heats water to temperature in the drum. So most of the energy consumption is in the temperature change rather than the mechanical action. 

We line dry 100% of our laundry and don't even own a washing machine. It happened kind of by accident when I discovered that the long, clogged, vertical exhaust pipe was a fire hazard, ripped it out, and never got around to installing a short one through the wall. We have saved a lot of money, and in the arid southwest, clothes only take about 3 hours to dry outside. the UV probably kills off a lot of bad bacteria, too.

PS,

Where do you wash them? Bathtub?

Or do you just take showers with your clothes on :-)

No, we have a washing machine. It's a water-guzzling top-loader, but I don't mind because it's hooked up to a graywater system, so all of that water goes on to feed my plants. And compared to front-loaders, it was cheap as hell and will probably last twice as long.

I only have about 5 shirts and one pair of pants in circulation at a time, so if it was just me (no wife, kid or dog) I probably would wash them in the shower or the sink or something. That's not feasible once you add my wife's clothes, the kid's clothes, and all the various and seemingly-constantly-multiplying linens, towels, and cloths that appear to be necessary to run a household.

[quote=Pointedstick]That's not feasible once you add my wife's clothes, the kid's clothes, and all the various and seemingly-constantly-multiplying linens, towels, and cloths that appear to be necessary to run a household.[/quote]

Thank God doilies are out of fashion

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: I'm an idealist and I love thinking about "what ifs".....so don't take me to task for this.

You know, the world might be a much more enjoyable place if human beings were satisfied with just "good enough" with a lot of the mundane products in life. Why are so many people wasting their lives away for example creating laundry soap or toothpaste commercials to steal marketshare from their competitors?

Good and important point.  Most peoples lives would be improved if that followed what you are saying.  WHy don't they?  most people are slaves to the thoughts in their head.  Thus people put energy into e.g. latest this or that, more food, status, sex, money, many times in the mistaken belief it will make them happy.  I beleive I've mentioned Anthony DeMello before:

“I discovered something that revolu­tionized my life.”? He had met a rickshaw driver in Calcutta named Rinsai, who, although he was dying of a painful disease and was so poor that he had to sell his skeleton before he died, still was a man filled with faith and interior joy. “I suddenly realized,”? Tony continued, “I was in the presence of a mystic who had rediscovered life. He was alive; I was dead. He was a man who had reincarnated himself during this life.”?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Love-Medi ... 038524939X

Learning to ignore the mind is non-trivial (hyperbole alert!), but can be done if you want it bad enough, and have the right tools.

Wow, that must have made it even harder to drive his rickshaw!

I read this today and immediately thought of this thread.

“Let’s, Like, Demolish Laundry”?

http://nymag.com/news/features/laundry-apps-2014-5/

In Silicon Valley, where The Work of creating The Future is sacrosanct, the suggestion that there might be something not entirely normal about this—that it might be a little weird that investors are sinking millions of dollars into a laundry company they had been introduced to over email that doesn’t even do laundry; that maybe you don’t really need engineers to do what is essentially a minor household chore—would be taken as blasphemy

On the topic of 3d printing houses, here is another thing China is printing. This might be an interesting avenue to explore pointedstick!

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/08/2 ... nts-spine/