Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Sure: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/egg-prices-by-state

That site's sourced to a Business Insider article from a year and a half ago, and that article gets the data from Instacart.

Any average from Instacart is going to be way high because it is averaging the standard supermarket eggs most people eat with the super-premium ones bought only by those with money to spare. Instacart also makes their money by charging more than the store does and pocketing the difference - a quick check shows that their current egg prices here are about a dollar a dozen more than I'd pay if I got in my car and drove to the store.

More importantly, a year and a half ago the US chicken population was massively reduced due to bird flu concerns and the price of everything chicken related underwent a pronounced but temporary spike which hasn't lasted.

The cost of living has gone up. Inflation in general has gone up. Wages mostly haven't or if they have, then they haven't kept up with inflation.
The democrats lost on this idea that "Actually things were fine and doing ok."

We absolutely, positively do not want to hear that lie and will vote out ANYONE, ANYONE who says it. If politicians want to end their career, say that.
The middle class is dying and needs help. It has been for a long time. We don't need companies to "trickle down," because it doesn't work, but tragically people are falling for this old trickle down lie. Sure it's not easy raising chickens, or hydroponics or whatever, and as T said, we don't even really have the widespread tech. We could if we cared enough to vote in the funding for it but that's not gonna happen anytime soon. There's just the horrible, unshakable idea that investing in the American people isn't worth it and is all a waste. More money to the mega corporation though, "that's the best idea ever...." It hasn't worked so far, but we're gonna keep right on doing it.

The point is, there's no real option presented and maybe growing your own food indoors isn't practical right now, it's at least an idea. I don't know how to make anything else be produced by the people who need it. Unless they build a ton of housing to lower rent, that price is not going down (unless there's another foreclosure crisis and property values tank). Unless we figure out how to make more medical care, that price is not going down.It's like that for everything it seems. The companies want to charge you more and more but pay you less and less comparatively. It's amazing, businesses have the audacity to say workers cost too much or don't work hard enough. We are working harder than ever, and our paychecks do not buy us as much. Killing BS is their customer base, but they can't see that. This can't keep going on forever.

At the macro scale, wages have exceeded inflation growth for the last three years. It is accurate to say that there are places where wages fell short, and more places where wage growth just kept up and you feel like you're running on a treadmill. However, both data and andecdote show that the people screaming about inflation being so high aren't acting like their short of money. The percentage of consumer spending dedicated to luxuries has gone up, in times of serious economic hardship this index almost always goes down. That's the data. Anecdotally, everyone I know who's throwing a fit about how much things cost not only are not going hungry, they're going on expensive trips, buying flashy electronics, and otherwise acting like they have plenty of money.

Growing your own food isn't "not practical right now". It will never be practical for city dwellers due to fundamental limitations. There's been good progress in large-scale hydroponics for raising food in urban environments - which is used in massive factory-like buildings dedicated to the sole purpose of growing food. Doing the same thing in a small space that is also supposed to be your living area is not going to happen.

[Maximum Spin]

We could if we cared enough to vote in the funding for it but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

No we couldn't, that's the point. It's not a matter of investing in the technology, it's a question of discovering that the laws of physics were totally different from what we thought. If that happens then some things might become practical.

There's just the horrible, unshakable idea that investing in the American people isn't worth it and is all a waste. More money to the mega corporation though, "that's the best idea ever...." It hasn't worked so far, but we're gonna keep right on doing it.

Well, except that global production and living standards are the highest they've ever been in history and everyone, even the poor, has incalculably more access to stuff and services than ever before, so much so that even villagers subsistence farming in central Africa have cell phones, it hasn't worked.
Don't misunderstand, I'm sympathetic to your feeling, and there are very real problems and more looming on the horizon - but it's necessary to have some sense of perspective.

The point is, there's no real option presented and maybe growing your own food indoors isn't practical right now, it's at least an idea. I don't know how to make anything else be produced by the people who need it. Unless they build a ton of housing to lower rent, that price is not going down (unless there's another foreclosure crisis and property values tank). Unless we figure out how to make more medical care, that price is not going down.It's like that for everything it seems. The companies want to charge you more and more but pay you less and less comparatively. It's amazing, businesses have the audacity to say workers cost too much or don't work hard enough. We are working harder than ever, and our paychecks do not buy us as much. Killing BS is their customer base, but they can't see that. This can't keep going on forever.

As of right now, the most likely factor to bring down housing prices may be tighter visa restrictions that bring the growth rate of the resident population below the rate of new construction. A population structure redistribution away from some of the largest cities (which have been made hardest to build in) is also likely. Increasing the rate of construction very much is systemically impractical - it's more likely to bid up the cost of materials and redirect them away from other things. The healthcare market is currently extremely distorted by absolutely horrific incentive structures; it would take the length of a novel to describe it. All that said, ideas are worth nothing on their own. Everything is at least an idea, terraforming Mars is at least an idea.

But it can keep going on forever as long as there are more people willing to come to work and live cheaply. In other words, there's no point at which that engine has to stop, at least until living conditions are reduced to parity with third-world levels so there is no further distinction, I suppose.

[McTraveller]

The absolute number one way to be robust against inflation is to own your own home. Yes this is daunting, but it's not nearly as impossible as the naysayers (and landlords) want you to believe. There are even quite a few ways to buy a house even if you don't have 20% to put down, and "they" just typically don't advertise those ways.

If you want policies to help mitigate the effects of inflation, look for policies to help make housing accessible (rather than line the pocket of housing conglomerates). I don't think immigration policy will do this, because I think it will hurt construction more than it will increase vacancy of sellable properties (I think it will increase vacancy of rentals.) I'm willing to be wrong on that hypothesis though.

Locking in what is most likely your largest expense to a fixed dollar amount is huge for financial stability.

The only time I'd say to rent is if you don't think you can stay in the same area for 5 years or more. Even if there are mathematical formulae that say renting is better, the non-monetary benefits of not being subject to a landlord can far outweigh them. Not having to worry about getting evicted, or having your rent increase 10% a year, etc. etc.  Plus you may realize some tax benefits you don't get with renting.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't think immigration policy will do this, because I think it will hurt construction more than it will increase vacancy of sellable properties (I think it will increase vacancy of rentals.) I'm willing to be wrong on that hypothesis though.

I have yet to see any plausible reason why this should be the case. Construction doesn't appear to be especially rife with legal immigrants, not when compared to other industries, and while it certainly employs no small number of illegal ones it isn't exactly dependent on a constant stream of them. The number of work visas issued to tech companies or yogurt manufacturers could drop to zero without putting a dent in the rate of construction.

ETA: Oh, and decline in the demand for rental properties encourages them to be sold off, as well as discouraging the constant process by which former single-family homes are refit into shoebox apartments. Remember that many rental properties are former suburban homes! They can be resold to flippers who kit them out as houses again. Even purely restricting our vision to apartment buildings, they can become more affordable options for people, especially older people, now occupying other housing stock as well as those in the generally smaller and less pleasant apartments divvied out of the aforementioned houses.

[McTraveller]

In aggregate, apparently about 50% of all roofers, painters, and flooring installers are "foreign born." That's a massive portion of the industry, even if it's a small fraction of all immigrants (compared to some other industry).

Apparently the total fraction of foreign born folks in the US is around 15%.

So say you impact 10% of all foreign-born folks equally. This means you're down to 95% of the previous construction capacity but still have 98.5% housing demand.

I just don't see how that will reduce housing pressure proportionally, even taking into account depressed demand for rentals in some areas. Given that today we are not balanced to start - that is, demand is higher than supply, reducing supply relative to demand even farther just doesn't seem plausible in aggregate. Some geographic areas may work out really well, but others will need to be necessarily worse to make the aggregate outcome.

[Maximum Spin]

In aggregate, apparently about 50% of all roofers, painters, and flooring installers are "foreign born." That's a massive portion of the industry, even if it's a small fraction of all immigrants (compared to some other industry).

Apparently the total fraction of foreign born folks in the US is around 15%.

So say you impact 10% of all foreign-born folks equally. This means you're down to 95% of the previous construction capacity but still have 98.5% housing demand.

I don't quite think you get the point here. Your numbers have nothing to do with anything.

It's a question of population growth rate vs. the rate of net new housing construction. One is not even speaking of "impacting" foreign-born residents already here, one is speaking of reducing incoming so that the population growth rate is smaller. You aren't even thinking about the problem in the right way - really massive numbers of new buildings are going up every year, it's not that some static supply is not enough for static demand.

[McTraveller]

We are describing the same phenomenon but with different conclusions.

My assertion is the reduction in the rate of new supply will be more than the reduction in the rate of population growth.  Thus, the shortfall of housing will increase rather than decrease.

Even if the present demand gap could be eliminated by an instantaneous drop in demand, the fact that the rate of new construction is already too low doesn't change; the situation will just resume again "immediately."

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Very glad those you talk to seem not impacted by inflation. Hope they are not. Many are.

Computers were enormous, filled very large rooms, operated off punch cards, and only rich universities financed their purchase.
Now, almost all Americans have a touch screen smartphone (tricorder) in their pocket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykxMqtuM6Ko

As for impossibility of indoor growing, see prior post for current limitations:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=162538.msg8565481#msg8565481

"Never" is a big word. Might take a while. Could be easier if we sprinted the research, but that costs money, so good luck.

Musk on Mars is either going to  A.) grow food indoors on Mars, B.) make multiple long grocery deliveries from earth, or C.)  starve.

(Also, the sheer number of stoners who grew pot indoors back when it was very, very illegal [and could be noted by their massive electric bills and infrared scans of neighborhoods showing their equipment and grow lights to law enforcement], implies motivation [in their case to get high and/or sell it) matters.] Because they were hiding that, a lot.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhhmZ78aQ8

I'm telling you, some inventive stoners.... They could do it to sell it and get high.... And they made money but .... Guess why....
Note: This does not condone drugs or illegal drug growing operations, but it was technically possible.

Space programs pay dividends directly and indirectly (satellites, dialysis, cordless power tools, etc.)
We stupidly don't invest properly in them. China is catching up to us and if Artemis isn't funded right, they'll overtake us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program

https://www.space.com/astronauts-harvest-space-lettuce-veggie-experiment.html
https://www.space.com/china-astronauts-grow-vegetables-tiangong-space-station
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220708-how-china-is-creating-new-foods-in-space

Found some youtube videos mentioned last time. Close but not exactly what was mentioned. Doable in suburbs, if replacing lawns with growing areas, and possibly hiring someone to plant/harvest, etc. when some videos claim a profit:

"Quitting Your Job To Farm on a Quarter Acre In Your Backyard"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJx1SPClg6A

"How We Feed our Family with a 20x40 ft. Garden - COMPLETE TOUR"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1Q5--igLs

"THIS IS HOW MY FARM WORKS! - $100K on a quarter acre" (Give me an entire subdivision full of this guy, please).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbHwAfHQA9M

Technically possible and at scale but the enormous price tag puts this right out of reach.
https://greenoponics.com/shop/indoor-hydroponic-farm-almirah-l/
Product details

    Suitable for office / restaurants
    Can grow 288 plants

At present research/implementation speed, in 15-20 years that might actually be affordable if the price comes down.

Now, it would require determination, dedication, willingness to change, money, buckling down for some real hard work, and....

It's not gonna happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFwZaT6EiA
Please do not quote

[Maximum Spin]

We are describing the same phenomenon but with different conclusions.

My assertion is the reduction in the rate of new supply will be more than the reduction in the rate of population growth.  Thus, the shortfall of housing will increase rather than decrease.

Even if the present demand gap could be eliminated by an instantaneous drop in demand, the fact that the rate of new construction is already too low doesn't change; the situation will just resume again "immediately."

But you haven't given any reason why there should be a reduction in the rate of new supply in the circumstances I've described.

[McTraveller]

Ah - I think we were talking about different "circumstances" then. My initial statement was along the lines of policies for housing, and how I didn't think policies that would deport people would help housing despite claims to the contrary, because the deportation would disproportionately reduce the construction-working labor pool compared to the number of people deported.

I must've misunderstood whatever circumstance you were meaning - perhaps it was discussions about H1B limits? In that case... true, I don't think many H1B's are going into construction, and limiting immigration "by itself" would indeed reduce population growth pressure - but only with the economists' weasel words "only if all else is equal."

[Lord Shonus]

You can grow hydroponically on a large scale, using absolutely massive facilities as in your Mars example. The Dutch in particular are already doing it on an industrial scale, using multi-story buildings the size of football stadiums. That's not the part I was taking issue with. The issue I have is the claim that people will be able to use their own homes and apartments into personal farms to feed themselves. That is physically impossible.

Yeah, stoners grew weed indoors for decades. That's a couple of dozen plants max - the same amount of vegetable plants won't produce enough to feed you for a month if you spend a year growing them.

[Strongpoint]

Hundreds of kg of food an adult person requires per year is, actually, quite a lot.

Growing a few dozen kgs of veggies and fruits per year won't make much of a difference. Even managing 100 kg of those - won't feed you unless you sell that and buy calorie-dense food but at this point, you are having a small business doing it much less efficiently than a proper farmer would.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Begin with agreement. You are both correct, today, now. It is not presently possible. No argument against. Your supposition is valid.
Respectful disagreement: "physically impossible." Ever? In the future?

Examine present impossibility ( already showed multiple impediments ); can this be overcome in the future?

My position: perhaps yes, through great effort. Your position(s): No. (Please correct me if I am incorrect).

Obstacles 1 and 2: Materials/space:
Historically, materials substitute for land. A bigger building can expand outward or upwards (or downwards), but all expansion has costs.
Purchase land to expand outwards, building wide across one level.
Purchase materials (lumber, steel, concrete, etc.) to expand upwards or downwards (2nd, 3rd, 4th story, or basements.
Therefore, more building space (for various purposes) can be had by either buying more land or building material(s).

You may disagree that designed functionality can accommodate most any use. (Please see #3 and 4, below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnSrjOBpmEU&t=30s
Stack the indoor garden vertically through use of pipes on the walls or other fixtures on walls? Perhaps possible in the future, but multiple issues remain, especially social, "it's ugly." (Please see all points below specially #9 Social).

Obstacles 3 and 4: Climate/Electricity/Light:

Buildings can be made to a purpose, or multiple purposes. If design allows, this can include plant growing and living space.

Capacity and construction:
A.) The small number occupancy home, "single family home" :

Theoretically easier example. Aside from replacing lawn with growing space, design could permit inside growing. Large south facing windows (Northern Hemisphere) could help: https://www.instagram.com/earthship/p/C7UGHvtMuwY/
"Earthships" do this, although it doesn't have to be that extreme. https://earthship.com/systems/   They also tend to capture and filter rainwater and those in New Mexico/Arizona tend to be have green energy, solar/wind electricity.

A wall of south facing windows, and/or a greenhouse like space on the front of a home could go a long way towards climate/light issues.
Privacy desired? Apply curtains/shades/shutters.

Artificial light needs electricity for grow lights and that larger concern depends upon future electric generation/storage capabilities.
Didn't say it would be easy and indeed said it was not presently possible. If we get really good solar/wind/biogas, or other electric generation, maybe.

Admittedly, it is a lot like combining a house with a greenhouse or a part of a greenhouse. See also "earthship."

B.) The large number occupancy home(s) apartments:
Harder example due to a.) space constraints, b.) placement and proximity to other units, c.) many units may not have a south facing wall.

Artificial grow lights would be key as would construction incorporation of sunlight features. All this costs money and again as admitted is not presently possible.

The Chinese are doing some experimental stuff with "vertical forests." Don't see a reason why some of those plants couldn't grow food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY3oW80muEQ

There's also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSvC_Kru0eo

Admittedly, those are conceptual and not practical, as previously stated, at present.

I think the root of your objection is that it is presently impossible to grow food crops in an apartment as it exists today. Again, agree and part of the development of future tech would have to address this through new building design. However, given current constraints, the closest thing would be microgreens.

https://extension.psu.edu/the-abcs-of-microgreens

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9864543/

https://simplylivingwell.com/blog-garden/how-to-grow-microgreens-indoors

How to Grow Microgreens at Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUauSDVB008

How to Grow Microgreens Using Sprouting Trays | Step-By-Step Tutorial | Soilless Growing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF2Rl-0HcM0&t=10s

How to grow microgreens at home - From start to finish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtRPVJ24-FQ

Grow MicroGreens in a CLOSET or SMALL SPACE!!! EASY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh6iZawY6xU

https://activegrowled.com/collections/microgreen-led-grow-tent-kits-led-grow-lights-trays?gad_source=2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvZe19qrSigMVaS3UAR2zBDKSEAEYBCABEgL2a_D_BwE

Then of course, if you want to nix all that, there's always mushrooms:
How to grow mushrooms at home - Full process day 1 to 60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibkXqKe4ebE

Obstacles 5, 6 and 7: Labor/Time, Risk and Pests:

Again, not presently as feasible as it needs to be. Time/work in this context may never lessen. Risk is always present (certain percentage of crop failure), and pests are pests that have plagued humanity from the beginning. Better pest control techniques could help, as could strictly isolating the crop areas, but that poses other challenges. Admittedly a large barrier(s) to overcome. Very difficult? Yes. Impossible? Hopefully not in the future, but solution is several years out, if not 20 -30 years.

Obstacle 8: Water:

Another incredibly tough issue. Some techniques use less water than others. Aeroponics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics uses much less water, but is far more complex and can easily result in crop failure if anything goes wrong at present. At some point you either have enough clean, fresh water, or you don't.

Similar vein with plant nutrients, which would likely have to be added in, either to soil or water (nutrient feed).

Obstacle 9: Social:

Possibly the biggest obstacle. Here, social includes economic considerations as well. Do you want to live in a greenhouse, or with part of your home as a greenhouse? Would others? Would this answer change if doing so cost more, at least initially? Would the possibility of future profits move the needle on people's decisions?

This would be a very big change and a lot of people wouldn't want it, especially if they had to pay anything for it. Actual determined opposition may arise.

Strong point commented that even growing 100 kg of food wouldn't feed you unless sold to buy calorie-dense food and this is not incorrect. However, selling a crop to use the money to buy other food could still work if the profits paid for supermarket food. At some point, it's about providing resources, directly or indirectly, that would result in food, etc.

Summation: I understand and partially agree with your opposition, and certainly at present. My position is the hope that future technology may overcome the impediments preventing this at present. You may be right, and forgive me for hoping you're wrong, specifically that the future will provide answers and solutions even if 20 years from now, and even if I don't get to see it happen. My hope is that this has been somewhat assistive and that the future will permit more food growth to permit at least partial self sufficiency with greater nutrition.

Yes, a dream at present, but must it always be so? Will it ever be realized? Time will tell. I don't think it's impossible. I think it's not feasible or likely. It could be if we had large developments in energy production/storage, production of plant food/nutrients for the plants, materials to create in infrastructure, and social adoption on a mass scale. Again, I don't think this is likely in the near term and if it did happen, we're talking ... 20 ish years.

Please do not quote

[Maximum Spin]

It's not a flying machine, it's a car that runs on water.

[McTraveller]

I think it has more to do with the agriphysics and the square-cube law. Basically if you try to cram too much agriculture in a volume that is too compact, it doesn't have enough surface area for the necessary inflows and outflows of nutrients, energy, and waste (even if you use pipes/wires - there's still a limit).

It's actually an annoying fact of modern life: it's generally never cost effective for an individual to try and "make their own X" compared to what they can buy off the market due to massive economies of scale. Unless we literally end up with "replicators" and have free-at-the-retail-level energy, it will always be more efficient for society to have centralized production.

We have that benefit of centralization today ... What we are missing though are the social protections against the abuses that can be perpetrated because of such centralization.  This is the "one trick" humanity hasn't seemed to be able to figure out - how do you keep the benefits of specialization without devolving into tyranny by whomever controls that centralized production?