Y2K preparation... right idea, wrong event.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

During the past ten months on this forum, I have often spoken in support of "moderate" preparation--what I call, "smart living." I use this catchprhase to describe living within one's means and avoiding the traps of instant gratification, consumer credit and "keeping up with the Jones." (What Thorstein Veblen called "pecuniary emulation" and "conspicuous consumption.")

Even with the placid rollover (thus far), "smart living" is still a reasonable idea. I do not think the economy will remain robust forever. At greatest risk will be to the long-term poor and the faux middle to upper middle class. I think the plight of the poor in an economic downturn is easily understood. A more subtle risk is for those families who acquired massive debt, buoyed by an overvalued market and easy credit. An economic downturn, including interest rate hikes to curb inflation, will financially devastate many.

Does this economic risk justify years of stored food in the cellar? Hardly. While I think increased self reliance is a noble goal, true self sufficiency is a myth. This said, there is still a window of opportunity for folks to pay down debt and solidify their financial position. Those who abandon a defensive strategy buy into a relief rally and an overvalued market.

MODERATE preparation for unknown events is a good idea, though it ought not be event driven. Smart living is a lifestyle choice, and works equally well in good times or bad.

From an ealier post (June 1999)...

"...Based on all the evidence thus far, I cannot find reasonble grounds to anticipate a nationwide lack of basic services (electricity, water, telecommunications) for an extended period of time. Now, we can debate if the grid will stay up... but I think the data so far suggests it will. Reports from these three sectors are positive and improving. Worst case Y2K scenarios are usually predicated on a loss of basic services. If the power stays on, folks, we have a solvable problem. Uncomfortable, maybe, but with power we have heat, hot water, refrigeration, cooking and information. In short, we have civilization.

With the grid intact, we are really talking about the economic impacts of computer-related failures, disruptions in the supply chain, etc. Now, even in this moderate-severe environment smart living will serve you pretty well.

First, you'll have money saved and be debt free. Trust me, debt collectors have functioned in the darkest days. No matter how bad it gets, no one is going to forget you owe them money.

If you have invested in your skills, you'll have a decent job... and you'll be able to find new work if you are laid off due to economic problems. Remember, during the height of the Great Depression the employment rate was 75%. Three out of four people had jobs... and most of us will work no matter what happens with Y2K.

If you are living smart, you'll have a tight budget, you'll know how to fix your own car and take care of small repair jobs around the house. You'll know how to find a bargain and how to buy in bulk; how to cook and bake. You'll be in good physical condition (if not disabled). You'll have friends and family to help. In the words of my great grandmother you will: "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without."

If you want to prepare as if you are stocking Fort Apache, have at it. But remember, even remote outposts on the western frontier relied on trade. Someone else made their guns, iron cookpots, shoes, tack, etc. I have already talked about the myth of self sufficiency on an earlier post. I think it's better to see how interdependent we are and how much we rely on trade. Even if Y2K problems are horrible, our economy will still produce goods and services. And it will prioritize the goods and services necessary for basic living. Right now, only a small percentage of our GDP actually goes towards life sustaining commerce (leaving health care out of the picture for a moment). We spend staggering amounts on entertainment, luxury items, fast food, silly cars, etc. All of our productive capacity can be be redirected... even if diminished. Remember how we came together during the Second World War? Yes, there were victory gardens and ration cards. But we also won the war through sheer productive capacity. In reality, the Germans had better equipment... but we had much, much more. As much as any factor, capitalism won.

This is why I have faith in our nation of Yankee traders. Right now, while I am writing, someone is fixing a Y2K problem. Not because it has been ordered by the central government, not for charity or for amusement... but because he (or she) is free to work, free to profit, free to gain..."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 03, 2000

Answers

Hey...you said you were going to leave. You're addicted aren't you? You couldn't stay away if your life depended on it.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.

Ken,

Are you implying that stored food, in and of itself, is a less rational investment than, say, a digital readout on a bank statement? If you are, please explain why. Apologies if I misread your post.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 03, 2000.


Gawd, Ken, like the proverbial "bad penny"...

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 03, 2000.

This makes sense. Kind of analogous to dollar cost averaging, just do the same moderate self-sufficiency things regardless of the predicted 'disaster du jour'.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), January 03, 2000.

"It's not just Y2K" has been and is being discussed on the preparation forum:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20%2 8Y2000%29%20Preparation%20Forum

(Hot link available under "About" on this forum's main page.)

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 03, 2000.



The esteemed Mr. Decker

How dare you make such a respectful and well-thought-out post. Isn't the urge to say "I told you so" just killing you?

Actually, as I reflect back on the feelings and thoughts of the past year, I come away from this experience with the following results:

I have a new found respect for technology, information, and the way that systems and people interact. Never again will I take for granted the food on my table, the money in my bank, or the fuel in my car and fireplace.

I have begun to live entirely debt-free. I am more comfortable with my financial situation than I have been in years. I no longer live check-to-check.

I have spent the last year with my children living life to it's fullest and appreciating every second I have with them. The same with my spouse and friends.

I have a sizeable cache of food and water that will all but eliminate my grocery bills for the next few months. I have toilet paper for the next year! I have enough ammo for a city, and still enough paranoia to keep it that way :)

I now have the wisdom and experience to moderate my attitude when examining future, unknown events, and will probably tend to be more pragmatic about such things in the future. I will be less panicky, more rational and analytical, and I won't let emotions get in the way.

I also discovered a group of people on this forum that share many of the same concerns, who have taught me much about alot of things, and with whom I have developed a feeling of comaraderie.

In short, I have no regrets about my participation in this forum or about my preparations for Y2K. I don't care about the "I-told-you- so's" that have greeted me this morning. I simply smile and go about living what I consider a better life.

And finally, I apologize to you, Mr. Decker, for any disrespect I may have shown you in the heat of battle before. Time may tell what Y2K will ultimately bring, but your rational and calm approach to the subject in the face of often vehement and nasty opposition deserve credit and respect.

-- ariZONEa (doh!@blush.com), January 03, 2000.


Decker rocks!

Queen of Spain sucks!

-- Andy Kaufman (AndyKaufman@heaven.com), January 03, 2000.


Ken, I have learned a new lifestyle which I like. I am not totally free of debt yet but I want to be! I have a food pantry filled with food which makes me comfortable. In short, I think many of us learned a lesson. To date, Y2k has not even been pesky but I know there is always the possibility of some calamity from nature or industry. I will always be ready!

-- Ruth Edwards (REath29646@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

Ken:

Balanced post. I'm having trouble remembering why the more severe doomers developed an allergic reaction to your posts. The newcomers would certainly find no fault in your logic over the last few months at least.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), January 03, 2000.


What a surprise... questioning the messenger rather than the message. Don't worry, folks, I won't be around the forum forever... but I do want to tie up some loose ends.

Eve... First, with currency, electronic or not, I can purchase most goods and services including food. Food, as a general rule, is much more limited in its uses (and perishable.)

My thesis is simple... the probability of an event requiring extended dependence on stored food is rather low. The probability of an event requiring stored cash is much higher. I'm not sure how you define rational, but I prioritize preparing for "high probability" events.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 03, 2000.



Good post Ken! I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate that you are still posting reasonable and gracious comments despite the trashing that you and Flint have taken here.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.

Mr. Decker -

You do realize that you now have taken the "doomer" role, don't you? Preaching such radical, anti-consumerist behavior will get you labeled a "survivalist" in very short order. How dare you question the glory of the current economic boom! And you go so far as to advocate getting out of debt! Debt is the engine of our fabulous economy, sir, and if everyone followed your advice, well, well...

We'd all be a sight better off. I'm looking forward to maintaining my own Y2K-generated debt reduction project (next milestone comes this month: last payment on my car!) at its current rate of progress. Onward!

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 03, 2000.


Ken,

If you imply that we should individually assess probababilities of events, and act on those probabilities, then we are in full agreement! With unknown outcomes, my preference for food becomes no better nor worse that your preference for cash.

It is of course assumed that the assessment is rational. By that I mean that the assessment is through using one's mind and methods (e.g., reason, logic, objectivity) as vigorously and scrupulously as possible. And the result is that people can have differing, yet reasonable, conclusions about the same scenario -- sometimes widely divergent.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 03, 2000.


Thanks Mr. Decker,

I have always enjoyed and agreed with a great many of your posts though I probably wasn't around for your biggest drubbings as I was too busy this summer to get onto the list for any length of time. I fully agree with the smart living premise. We started scaling back in 1996 in order to get our financial house in order for retirement and because we don't think the "good times" are going to roll on forever.

We didn't want to be stuck with an "albatross" of a house located on the business end of a 40 mile commute. We wanted to have our house partially pay for itself in the form of rental income, we wanted to be less dependant upon the oil industry by super-insulating our house and by living near downtown and within a biking distance of our jobs and services. We don't buy new cars, we don't go on long expensive vacations. I have clothes and shoes older than some of the folks that I work with and I keep them in good condition by paying attention to their upkeep. I buy used stuff as often as not and we know or learn how to do our own maintenence on our home, cars, other things. This just makes sense to me.

I work with folks (mostly younger) that buy as big of a house as they can afford, fill it full of new furniture purchased on credit, buy new cars or trucks that are in my opinion incredibly overpriced, go to concerts at 100 bucks a whack just for the experience rather than a real love of the artist/s, buy very expensive new clothes with somebody's name on it like Tommy or DKNY, that look or function no differently than other less prestigious brands that are a much better value. This is incredible to me. These same folks panic when they don't "get" to work a holiday or Sunday for the extra pay. Sad. This is the faux middle class that Mr. Decker is speaking of.

Thrift, an eye for quality, maintaining rather than trashing stuff, choosing classic things that aren't stylish or faddish and on the way to the landfill 10 minutes after it's purchase is the way to go for us. The consumer debt that some of my near peers carry would panic me. It would be wise to heed Mr. Decker's words.

Good luck and happy new year folks.

-- Cathy AKA Ramp Rat (ldalcorn@alaska.net), January 03, 2000.


Gosh, TM and KOS: Why do you dismiss this out-of-hand? Isn't Ken just articulating what has long been espoused on this forum, as OG points out? Ken's position strikes me as a sound and well- articulated one.

Ken: Having said that, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this: Would you agree that most of the time, events are precisely what cause people to reconcile their vulnerable positions and resolve to be prepared for the unexpected? Events happen all the time that waken people to the realization that "disruptions could happen to me" or, for those who have undergone them, "they could happen again." Our society certainly fosters an impression of invulnerability.

This event has been so unknowable and laregly inaccessible to non-technical people that it seems to have served nicely as a *potential* event for many. Fair?

So if this event proves to have no consequence to people, then perhaps it has been a merciful clarion call for prudent preparation and a consideration of one's lifestyle position. Would you evaluate it similarly? Your perspective on this?

Peter DeJaeger, in an interview on CNBC just now, said he had taken the position that businesses should spend a little more on remediation if they weren't sure because "the results could be so consequential." I suspect that's what individuals did as well on a prep level. Perhaps a lot of heat directed toward you and Flint has generated from the misapprehension that you were attempting to discourage folks from preparation, when in fact, as it works out, you were merely discouraging people from assigning credibility to the likelihood of the event. Understandings can get mighty blurry online for a variety of reasons.

Overall, how would you evaluate the effect of y2k to prompt people to reevaluate their positions of vulnerability and excesses in life? In your estimation, overall? The aggregate. I'd be interested in your viewpoint, evaluated from a standpoint that there may be minimal consequence to people from y2k, although as we agnostics are always mindful -- it is all yet to be told.

Lastly, would you agree or disagree that a large part of the subtext and motivation of a majority of people on TB has either been to help others, or reconcile for themselves these issues of vulnerability to disruptions, regardless of the event? Your thoughts?

-- (resolved@this.point), January 03, 2000.



Ken, I don't know if I am more amazed that so many doom types now laud you, or so many doom types cling to their beliefs that the entire disaster may surface months down the road. Either way, I am continually mystified by camp mentalities with regards to y2k. In the end, it didn't matter who was wrong or who was right. Everyone had their concerns. You are correct in stating that in hindsight, life itslef precludes the need to have basic preps in this day and age.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), January 03, 2000.

Apparently I've managed to miss your earlier posts the first go 'round but I see nothing in your post above that I have any particular problems with. I can see how some of the more dour planners would take issue with your advice but we must each come to our own conclusions.

Conspicuous consumption carries its own rewards and is always a bad idea. It's bad for the soul even when it is't not bad for the wallet.

Does this economic risk justify years of stored food in the cellar? Hardly. While I think increased self reliance is a noble goal, true self sufficiency is a myth. This said, there is still a window of opportunity for folks to pay down debt and solidify their financial position. Those who abandon a defensive strategy buy into a relief rally and an overvalued market.

Outside of a stone-age existence true self-suffciency isn't really possible. What most of these folks are doing is building themselves a time cushion and working towards self-reliance. If things go to heck their stored supplies will get them through a period of time determined by what they've put away and what the exact circumstances of the problem turn out to be. Many things can happen during that period of time, a new economy may spring up to supply the services and goods the planner cannot provide for themselves or the old economy may regroup and get itself back on its feet to resume its former responsibilities. Whether the individual will still be there when this comes to pass will depend largely on how good a job of planning they did. Chance favors the prepared mind.

Were the problem (the scenario being planned for) one of purely economic downturn such as you outline above then having a truly large store of food probably wouldn't be the most optimal plan. Much of the planning done by those into preparedness take into account an economic downturn but it is not the primary, possibly not even the secondary consideration they're working with. Under those circumstances having a large store of food may make a great deal more sense. Paying off debt and building a preparedness plan should ideally be done simultaneously, if at all possible.

For what it's worth, I've corresponded with hundreds of folks in preparedness planning specifically in food storage and I've met maybe six or seven who claimed to actually have more than a year's supply of food for their families on hand. There are many more who do say they've got a year's supply on hand and most of them do this as a tenet of their religious faith (LDS) and the non-LDS do it for similar reasons. Provided they don't go into debt to do it, I find this eminently sensible. The vast majority have somewhere between a month's and a year's worth of food on hand.

For ourselves we keep roughly six months food on hand and I have the knowledge, tools and ability to grow a great deal more if I must. Not that I ever plan to do subsistence farming but a lot of folks grew their own food during the Great Depression who had not thought they ever would.

MODERATE preparation for unknown events is a good idea, though it ought not be event driven. Smart living is a lifestyle choice, and works equally well in good times or bad.

This is very sensible - keeping in mind that "moderate" is going to be defined by the user. Going so far in your preparedness planning that the disaster you're concerned with not happening becomes a disaster in itself has led more than one hard-core survivalist to ruin. You have to survive the day-to-day as well as the disasters.

The scenarios we're planning for are not quite the same but I find much of your advice very well thought ought. Well thought out moderate planning will cope with just about anything that anyone will ever encounter.

..........Alan.

The Providence Cooperative

http://www.providenceco-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), January 03, 2000.


My 35 hens, 9 rabbits and 11 sheep are not going to perish anytime soon. Also the wheat I have stored will last in a viable condition for 100 years without degradation. My diesel equipment will serve me very well as I do more farming and move toward a more sustainable basis for living.

When that bobcat comes back around I'll have my rifle. When the coy- dogs show back up...a matter of a few shots. My well is pure and sweet. My home is secure and warm. The wood ready for a hard day or two.

I don't feel too badly about all this. Nothing is more lovely than sitting at breakfast with the most wonderful woman in the world, eating hot, fresh whole wheat biscuts and fresh eggs in the morning. Work hard all day. Fall asleep with a sense of contentment and find blessed rest for the night. Even the roosters are funny at 0430 as they preempt the dawn!

Life is good.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), January 03, 2000.


Resolved:

"Would you agree that most of the time, events are precisely what cause people to reconcile their vulnerable positions and resolve to be prepared for the unexpected?"

Almost all of our decisions are based on experiences. One might form opinions on a first-hand experience like living through the Great Depression. Or, one can rely on a second-hand experience like reading a book about the Great Depression. We all experience and interpret events and apply the "lessons" to our life. ("Fire good.")

"Our society certainly fosters an impression of invulnerability."

Not sure if I agree. The media emphasizes negative events. Despite living in a safe neighborhood, I read about homicides, rapes, abuse, drugs, crime, etc. Our society does foster the impression many folks are victims or potential victims. I find this at odds with your suggestion of invulnerability. (Personally, I feel neither invulnerable nor victimized.)

"So if this event proves to have no consequence to people, then perhaps it has been a merciful clarion call for prudent preparation and a consideration of one's lifestyle position. Would you evaluate it similarly? Your perspective on this?"

Hmmm... let's say we have a hurricane warning. Everyone prepares but nothing happens. What might we expect during the next hurricane warning? Only a handful of people took Y2K seriously enough to engage in major preparations. Of these individuals, some will make "preparation" into a lifestyle change. This, however, is a tiny fraction of the population. Far more people were midly concerned about Y2K... and then saw a "nonevent" on New Year's Eve. Think they'll do anything during the next "hurricane warning?"

"Overall, how would you evaluate the effect of y2k to prompt people to reevaluate their positions of vulnerability and excesses in life? In your estimation, overall? The aggregate."

Overall, I think the Y2K "nonevent" hurts the cause of modest preparation. Y2K became the butt of the humorous KIA commercials... and the humor was at least somewhat vindicated. The extreme pessimists have become the boys (and girls) who cried wolf. Their militant stance on Y2K preparation and intolerance of moderate positions may come back to haunt us all.

"Lastly, would you agree or disagree that a large part of the subtext and motivation of a majority of people on TB has either been to help others, or reconcile for themselves these issues of vulnerability to disruptions, regardless of the event?"

Who can speculate as the motives of others? Many of the people on TB 2000 were friendly and decent. They seemed honestly interested in helping one another.

As an Internet "neighbhorhood," TB 2000 was a success. The forum succeeded in providing a place for like-minded people to support one another... a perfect place for those who had moved beyond the "if" of Y2K, to the "when." I'm sure regular participants were well prepared for a catastophic Y2K.

As a place of civil discourse, unbiased information, reasoned analysis... TB 2000 was far less sucessful. While well-intended, the post-Yourdon sysops and a handful of posters created an environment that discouraged open debate. This led to some people "over" preparing for an event with a very, very small probability of occuring. Does this make them bad people? Of course not. Were they well intended? I imagine so. Did the forum help them? Probably... but it also let them down.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 03, 2000.


Decker, my opinions on this forum have generally swayed a bit more than yours, as I had kept the attitude of "Who the heck knows what's going to happen as anything is possible in the near future?"

I must say that you have earned my respect with your thoughtful, sensible posts in spite of your magnetic attraction to ornery and overly-opinionated curmudgeons who attacked everything you said.

Looks like your analysis may prove accurate, IMO--and while "being correct" in prognostication is not the right idea for this forum--the art of thoroughness and balanced assessment is a trait that we would all do well to emulate...which you, of course, exhibited in profuse abundance and were soundly thrashed for.

Thanks.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), January 03, 2000.


Ken...soak it up. This is your day in the limelight. The day all your foes bow down and honor you. Your talent to massage the english language is paying off dividends now. You're intelligent, wiity and a fine communicator; but your compulsion to play to the crowd is insufferable.

By the way...what you're saying above is nothing new. Any reasonably intelligent person has arrived at those conclusions long ago.

Here's a new universal law that I've recently come to understand.

"If there's nothing left to say, Ken will say it."

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Dear Ken, I agree with you. I wish everyone would read Thorstein Veblen!!!!

-- Gen. Sherman (riverhouse@saber.net), January 03, 2000.

TM,

It is rare I laugh out loud when I read a post, but you certainly have an ability to amuse. The extreme pessimists are just as militant now as they were six months ago. They are still waiting for the mother ship "Meltdown" to land. As, it seems, are you.

I'm the first to admit my advice is shopworn. My great-grandfather passed it down to his son, and to his son, and then to me. It seems mostly common sense... but were it common, we'd have far fewer people struggling to manage debt.

My great-grandfather also had another bit of wisdom you seem to have missed. As important as common sense, is common courtesy. I have an extra copy of Veblen if you'd like to try it.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 03, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ