Future of Mobile Lifestyle Getting Harder or Easier?

[Canine]

It's both of course. The pendulum will swing both ways given enough time. However, there is one aspect that seems to work in favor of people living the mobile lifestyle: employers. Some employers must have mobile people that are able to live in their various rigs while they work for days, weeks, or months at a time. Amazon is a big one. They don't have the workforce they need for the Christmas season, so they created CamperForce which has been a resounding success for them. The sugar beet harvest is another. There physically isn't enough people in those remote areas to work the harvest, so people like us go there and that also has been a big success. National Parks also need seasonal employees as there often isn't physically enough people in the immediate area to work the jobs. There are an amazing amount of jobs that cater to us. Christmas tree sales, 4th of July, pumpkins sales on Halloween, and security for construction sites are lesser examples.

Many of the place offer wages that don't support owing a house and owning another home that happens to mobile. I'm not complaining about the wages, just pointing out that there are often financial limitations that prevent owning two homes in order to maintain a physical residence in order to comply with the law.

I sincerely doubt there are enough retired people with expensive RVs, a healthy retirement income, a house , and are also young enough to do many of these jobs. Many retirees aren't willing or able to do the work. Nothing wrong with that. If I were 65, had a nice retirement income, and all the other stuff, you wouldn't catch me working the beet harvest or Amazon no matter how healthy I was. Maybe camp host.

Should the rules for establishing a physical residence get so strict that it would severely legally prevent us from living like we do, and therefore, would severely hamper places like Amazon and the sugar beet harvest from having the workforce they need to function, would those companies fight back to protect our way of life for their selfish reasons? (Wow, talk about a run-on sentence.) How much pressure from employers would there be to promote positive legislation that would help them keep their quality, mobile workforce? It would be nice not to continually discuss work-arounds just to be able to continue to be a positive part of society and be part of a much needed mobile work force.

You would think that working for a living and not hurting anyone while be mobile would always be something to flaunt and be proud of, but that isn't always the case.

 

[John61CT]

The employers can always set up their own campgrounds, and local / state gov will let them do whatever.

When the next big crash comes if nomad numbers explode, there will be backlash in the more affected popular areas.

Some places may be explicitly compassionate and come up with subsidised campgrounds.

But more will treat us as homeless and try to "encourage" us to move on to other places.

 

[John61CT]

Good article, not nomads as such but related affordable housing crisis.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/the-urbanist-case-for-trailer-parks/566123

Yes the problem is the unwillingness to recognize and deal with low-income housing at a social level.

Pretending the free market will not be cruelly punitive.

The landlord class holding all the political power.

NIMBY wrt the poors driving neighborhood RE values downward.

Technical and design solutions aplenty are already there, but cannot be unleashed until zoning is for the benefit of the non-property owners' benefit too.

 

[Canine]

John, That's pretty much what I'm thinking plus more. Thanks. Not what I wanted to hear of course, but that is more likely the reality of it. The only part I would disagree with a little is while large places like Amazon would be catered to by local governments, that wouldn't change the situation with the mobile work force not having a physical address to comply with the law. We would still need to do work-arounds. Would be nice if Amazon dealt with the problem at the core issue instead of dealing with it symptomatically. I'll support any help we can get, though.

NIMBY is a great word. I nominate it Word of the Month.

 

[John61CT]

that wouldn't change the situation with the mobile work force not having a physical address to comply with the law.

That really is not that big a deal, easily worked around

compared to simply not having a place to live near where the **good** jobs are.

The bigger issue is it should be illegal for an employer to pay full-time workers less than what is required to live with dignity in that location.

 

[QinReno]

NIMBY is a great word. I nominate it Word of the Month.

I moved to Boulder CO in 1990 (left there in the late 2000s), and NIMBYism has long been a way of life there. The population of the county doubled during the 1990s. Everyone who moved to town thought they had found the Golden Paradise by the Rockies, and immediately wanted to ban anyone else from moving in. I think Boulder has a natural-born trademark on the word NIMBY.

There is a recent book that describes the nomad workamp life, also discusses people hosting campgrounds around the west.
https://www.amazon.com/Nomadland-Surviving-America-Twenty-First-Century/dp/039324931X

Also, the trend in the country overall seems to be to not employ "full-time" workers any longer, as then you have to pay them benefits.

 

[Canine]

John, But I don't want a work around no matter how easy it is at the moment. It's likely going to get more difficult before it gets better. I want to be proud that I'm a hard working, productive member of society. I don't like slinking around and not being straight forward about work or enjoying my life while I'm not hurting anyone. I contribute to society just like anyone else in a sticks and bricks house; why should I be treated in a derogatory or even illegal manner simply because I travel more than most people? When does traveling become a problem or illegal? Where is that line? It changes from state to state and even city to city. Even then it can be kind of gray. I have a hard time accepting that I have to be a bad guy in order to be a hard working, good guy. That isn't going to change enough soon enough if it ends up changing for the better.

There really isn't a suitable answer to those questions. It is what it is. Them't the rules. But if I can do my part to change society for the better regarding people who travel more frequently, then I will.

QinReno, that book looks interesting. It's in my Wishlist.

 

[QinReno]

 why should I be treated in a derogatory or even illegal manner simply because I travel more than most people? 

When I was at the fish fry in Bombay Beach in february, all of the other people there were spending the winter in their big rigs in the RV spa resorts on the hillside to the east, about here: 33.422545, -115.682632

They were mostly comparing notes on the size of their rigs. I pointed out my cargo van, and they became somewhat reticent to speak to me after that. LOL. I'm thinking, these poor saps are planted here for the rest of the winter, while I'll be traveling all over through SoCAl, AZ, and NM, which is what I did. Then they all got in their rented desert buggies and drove back to their big RVs on the hillside. I got in my van and went to Anza-Borrego the next day. Who won? (the last is just a rhetorical question).

 

[lenny flank]

The bigger issue is it should be illegal for an employer to pay full-time workers less than what is required to live with dignity in that location.

IIRC, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would currently be over $20/hour.

But that falls to an even larger issue: we need a GLOBAL minimum wage. Companies who send their jobs around the world should be required by international law (enforced by international trade agreements) to pay the same equivalent wage for the same job, no matter where the factory is located. It does us no good to win higher wages in the US if the company will just close the plant and move it to Indonesia where it can pay people five bucks a day.

 

[John61CT]

But if I can do my part to change society for the better regarding people who travel more frequently, then I will.

Preaching to the converted, but I worked on Capitol Hill enough years to be realistic about the chances of such changes.

There are thousands of liveaboard cruisers (on boats) who have millions in assets in the same situation, and who the government actually cares about where they legally domicile since they're high tax payers.

That's the sort of group that could get lawmaker's attention, maybe combined with Escapees.

And some jurisdictions have (maybe unofficially) come up with aboveboard solutions. Here's one in FL, in Clay County anyway, you go to court swear an affidavit

https://www.sbimailservice.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.cruisersforum.com/forums/+florida+"Green+Cove+Springs"+domicile+court

 

[John61CT]

IIRC, if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would currently be over $20/hour.

But that falls to an even larger issue: we need a GLOBAL minimum wage. Companies who send their jobs around the world should be required by international law (enforced by international trade agreements) to pay the same equivalent wage for the same job, no matter where the factory is located. It does us no good to win higher wages in the US if the company will just close the plant and move it to Indonesia where it can pay people five bucks a day.

Not feasible without a one-world government no more nations.

In reality a whole new post-capitalist economic model is needed, since in years to come a "perfectly healthy" economy (for whom?) will only require 20-30% of the population to be employed.

Creating BS Jobs just to keep people busy is not a dignified solution, and society would be better off if they're allowed to just pursue their interests and be creative, raise kids properly etc.

 

[QinReno]

You guys will like it even less, but there is high-profile controversy going on in the tech world that AI (artificial intelligence) will take over a huge percentage of "middle level" jobs over the next 20 years. Which will leave mostly the fairly well to do on the one hand and the rather low-waged on the other hand. So even more economic dichotomy. Some people are proposing "guaranteed minimum support" payments for everyone to deal with the disruptions. Basically wholescale welfare.

Some people poo-poo the whole idea of AI takeover, but it's starting. All of the major companies are adding AI to their products anymore. No one wants to be left behind. Google has even made claims that they are not a web-search company, but rather they are using search technology to train their AIs. That may be the "new post-capitalist economic model" of the future.

 

[lenny flank]

Not feasible without a one-world government no more nations.

I'm OK with that.  

In reality a whole new post-capitalist economic model is needed,

I'm OK with that too.  

 

[John61CT]

I'm OK with that.

But then no place to run to when the Bad Guys get their tentacles in full control.

Let's figure out how to work toward at least one country with a true democracy that works for All the People first.

As it is now I can always join my family members in Norway or NZ if it keeps getting worse.

 

[lenny flank]

Meh, all the good countries are too effing cold .............

 

[waldenbound]

I think its time for advocacy. I do not give up my Constitutional rights just because I travel and don’t live in a house.

Figure it out government. Sign an affidavit, check a box, answer some questions. But I have the right to fully participate in society without skulking around in the shadows.

I’m not a bum. I pay for goods and services, abide by the law. I’m a good citizen.

 

[DannyB1954]

On the topic of companies and a mobile work force, I understand that as the people that are available to work increases the companies are getting more restrictive about who they will hire. As an example some places will not take single people. The campsite costs them the same if there is one or two workers, so they make sure there are going to be two workers. Their bean counters say why have twice the expense housing two single people instead of four couples. If they can't fill their work slots maybe then they will take singles.
On nomadic jobs being great for young people, I don't think being a migrant farm worker has much of a future. You make enough to get to the next job, but then what happens when you are too old for that kind of work?

 

[John61CT]

I think the couples thing also comes from them being statistically more dependable.

The whole system is rigged to ensure a large pool of potential workers is available and desperate enough to work for a fraction of a living wage.

Any lifestyle choices that reject wage / debt slave mentality will be supressed and viewed as semi-outlaw, plus the "drifter / gypsies coming into town" suspicion that's always been there.

If you want respect be wealthy, or at least get a mortgage.

If you want freedom, be willing to wear the 1% outlaw badge proudly (no disrespect to bikers intended).

 

[John61CT]

Relevant CBS article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-are-living-in-their-vehicles-amid-high-housing-prices/

 

[John61CT]

Working conditions at Amazon

https://boingboing.net/2018/08/03/the-guardian-digs-into-the-dan.html