Kruse Kronicle

Living simply provides economic shelter

—

by

mwkruse
in

USA Today: Living simply provides economic shelter

CHICAGO (AP) — Keri Rainsberger isn't rich. She works in the nonprofit world for a relatively low-profit salary. Yet, as many Americans are scrimping for every penny, she hardly feels the pinch.

She still tithes 10% of her income to her church, even as other members have cut back. She rarely worries about rising gas and food prices. And she never bothers to balance her checkbook, because she doesn't come close to spending what she has.

"I live so far below my means that it doesn't really register," says Rainsberger, a 31-year-old Chicagoan with a wiry frame and unusually sunny outlook. "I don't have to think about money."

How is this possible?

For starters, she has no car and commutes by bicycle each workday. She also has no mortgage payment and chooses to live in an "intentional community," a partly shared space where $775 a month covers everything from utilities to meals. …

Comments

6 responses to “Living simply provides economic shelter”

  1. ZZMike Avatar
    ZZMike

    “She also has no mortgage payment and chooses to live in an ‘intentional community’…” – in earlier days, a commune.
    “Her private quarters — larger and a bit more expensive than some — are about 400 square feet”. That’s a 20-foot square, about 5 paces on a side. Mr Gore or Mr Edwards could handle about 50 of those rooms in their homes.
    “She shares bathrooms, showers, a kitchen and a large dining room with 28 other residents whose ranks include young professionals, professors and retirees.” Definitely a commune.
    I have nothing against communes, for people who find that lifestyle agreeable. But I don’t see it as an example. One could live even more cheaply by becoming a hermit.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I don’t see this as becoming the normative model for living in our culture but it may make some sense in some contexts. Some have used this a halfway method for moving people our of deep poverty into healthier living conditions. Others sense a particular call to this kind of living. It’s just not ever going to become the normative standard.

    Reply
  3. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    400 sq ft is actually a lot of space for one person. Espcially since she does not have a kithcen our bathroom in that 400 sq ft.
    My wife and I (and 2 cats and a dog) live in an 850 sq ft house. So we have 425 ft a person. (When the house was new in 1948 I suspect 4 folks lived here.)
    The 1968 ranch I grew up in had 1700 sq ft. There were 4 of us so that’s 425 a person again.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    If you have cats, then most likely they live in the whole square footage while you are permitted in their presence as staff. 🙂
    Seriously, if you’re young and without kids 400 sq ft isn’t bad. I’ve lived in less.

    Reply
  5. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    You are correct about the cats
    It’s clear that Rainsberger is not living a spartan existience. She even has a craft room in her apt.
    The living arrangement sounds a bit like the non nursing home portions of a lot of retirement villages. Folks have a small apt but take most of their meals in a community dining room.
    As an myers-brigg Introvert I find this sort of community appealing. At least in theory. You have a social network that you did not have to spend energy creating. And you have a private space to retreat to when you have been de-energized by being around people.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I too am slightly toward the introvert side. One of the things I’ve liked the least about many of these communal arrangements is the lack of private space where I can retreat to my “cave” and recharge the batteries. This community at least appears to be introvert friendly.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading