Why Work?
Hi John,
It's okay this email is not as negative as the subject may suggest.
I've been thinking about how little money you can make per acre. For
example, an acre may provide you with 1 tonne of wheat. Let's assume
it is organic wheat, I think the wholesale price for organic wheat is
about 30¢ per kilo, so you could make about $300/acre. With 30
acres of land I would only be able to make $9,000 a year. In fact it
is less because the crops need to be rotated every second year, so
you really you may only make about $4,500/year. However, that same
30 acres of land would more than supply everything that me and my
super- sized family would ever require.
Then I thought about how much effort would go into growing the wheat.
Actually it is very little effort. Plough and sow, reap and
harvest. Perhaps two major events a year, occupying no more than a
week or two each. You can buy mini combine harvesters, which are
like lawn mowers but do the same as a large combine harvester.
Then I thought about baking bread. If I baked and sold bread I could
sell it for about $4 a loaf. If we assume that each loaf contains
about 1 kilo of wheat (it would actually be less), then I could make
$4,000/acre or about $40,000/year. So I'm not being paid based on the
value of my land but on the amount of human effort put in on a
daily basis.
The same would be true for operating a dairy. A holstein cow can
produce 12-14L of milk a day. Let's assume it only produces 10L/day.
I think the organic price of milk is about 50¢/L so that would be
$5.00 per cow per day. If I have 40 cows then I could make $200/day
or $1400/week, which is roughly $70,000 a year. I'm not sure how much
land would be required to have 40 cows, 30 acres may not be enough,
I would have to look into it (I guess it also depends on the
fertility of the soil).
So basically I can earn just as good a wage being a dairy farmer that
puts in a few hours in the morning and evening and a few extra
hours doing odd jobs as I could being a top-notch J2ME programmer.
But if I was living on the land and the land provided everything I
needed: a whole year's supply of wheat with just two stints of work
per year, linen or cotton for clothing (again with just two stints of
work), meat, dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables; then why would I
want any more money? My lifestyle that I am living provides all of
life's needs with not much more effort than extended daily chores.
All of my food is of the best quality, it is all fresh and organic,
the sort that gourmet restaurants seek out. My clothing is organic
linen which again is the most expensive and best sought after. I get
to spend the whole day with my wife and my children. There is plenty
of time just to chill out and enjoy life, to spend time with the
neighbours and so on. Why would I need anything more? People work
their whole lives so that they can retire and have everything
provided for them, but living off the farm provides that right now
and you get to enjoy it in the best time of your life, with your
children.
So why work? This has got me thinking. Since the farm life allows us
to have everything we need with relatively little effort, why do
people want to work 9-5, 5 days a week? Surely this is entering into
bondage. And what more can a person possibly have than what the farm
already provides? The answer is basically frivolities (I'm not sure
whether that's the right word, but you know what I mean). Fast sports
cars, plasma TVs, digital cameras, branded clothing, computers,
mobile phones. Stuff that's pretty unimportant, especially on a farm.
However, there is one exception: the money earned can be used to
purchase more land, but more land is only useful if it is being used,
and I would argue that no more than 10 acres is required to provide
for a very large family. The sort of land worker's buy is small and
expensive land in the city. Instead I can have 30 acres of land for
$15,000 that can be fertile within a few years using the keyline
approach. Why would I want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
on a piece of land smaller than a quarter acre? Even the building I
can build myself using the raw materials available on the land.
People spend their whole lives working towards something that the
land already provides. The difference is that they get frivolities
and forms of convenience. It also may be worth asking what is it that
these workers are actually working on anyway? It is in fact the
very frivolities that they enjoy. In other words, something
unimportant. People are in bondage so that they can produce and
enjoy something that is completely frivolous.
It doesn't seem to make any sense, why work?
Well I began to think about one reason a farmer with a large family
may want to increase his wealth and that is to provide an inheritance
for his children. Let's say that the farmer had 30 acres which he
purchased for $15,000. Let's also say that he can earn $50,000 a year
after tax from dairying. Then over the next three years he could
purchase 10 more properties of equivalent size, one for each of his
children (he may need more). But after those three years of work he
no longer needs to work. Sure he could milk 40 cows morning and night
and earn $50,000 after tax each year, but why? What would he do
with the money?
I began to think about the people of the Bible that had a lot of land
and livestock. People like Abraham and Boaz and Job and Jesse. Why
did these people need so much land and livestock? Surely they didn't
need it. Couldn't Abraham and his wife have survived without massive
herds? I mean they even lived in tents, it's not like they had
expensive housing. But then I began to realise that these were
dangerous times. What protection does a single family have against
the raiding hordes that want to steal your children and you to sell
into slavery? Abraham had an army, he had one because he needed one.
People came and worked for him because they knew they were safe under
his leadership. They trusted and respected him.
Job was raided by the Chaldeans, I'm not sure whether he had
protection but he sure needed it.
So do I need an army? One day I may do. But in the mean time my army
would have nothing to do, plus I may attract unwanted attention from
the Australian Defence Force and they may bomb us into oblivion, as
we appear to be a security threat.
Okay so I don't need an army. Why not? Because we are living in
Abraham's family. The Australian Defence Force is Abraham's army. The
protection provided by Abraham allows me to live a life without
needing to grow large enough to protect myself. I only need as much
as is required for me and my children and their inheritance.
So in conclusion I say that the best way to live is a subsistent life
off the land with perhaps a few years work to build up an
inheritance for the children. If the work is done on the land then
you get to enjoy everything that lifestyle has to offer and even
include your children in the inheritance building process.
What is the alternative? The alternative is to live in the city and
hence work. You don't need to earn much and hence don't need to work
much, to survive. But you may only afford a small apartment and you
may have to get creative in trying to avoid having too many kids as
they won't fit in the apartment. At the end of your working life you
can go on the pension which isn't much but you can continue to
survive. Alternatively you could work hard, 40+ hour weeks, perhaps
go into business and work even longer hours. Some may retire early,
the majority will be slaves to the system, buying bigger houses and
faster cars. At the end, your super may be enough to provide a
reasonable lifestyle. The downsides are not spending as much quality
time with your family and possible compromising your family's
physical health. Their could be spiritual issues too. I mean what
would the Lord say about spending so much time building frivolities
for us all to use?
People are flat out just paying the mortgage. But you look at their
jobs: one person serves coffees, another repairs computers, another
cars, someone makes designer furniture, works in retail. All this
time dedicated to what? Frivolity. But don't we need the money to put
a roof over our head, to pay for our children, to save for our
retirement? Well we should be able to rent and the government
provides plenty of handouts for children and there is also the
pension for retirement. But of course it isn't sustainable for
everyone to rely on the government (although it could be...).
This modern life seems so wrong at every level, that I wonder whether
the Lord would want us to participate in it at all. The more I
learn the more I realise that the modern world we live in is a
mission. Pastor Richard said last week that 50 years ago roughly 50%
of Australians lived in rural Australia. That means that 50 years
ago 50% of people didn't live this lifestyle. I've heard that 100
years ago 90% of people lived off the land. City-dwellers were a
minority, and perhaps weren't as affected by frivolities. Much of
the work may have been in trading goods that weren't known to be
grown locally: silk from China, spices from India. Sure it could
still be classified as frivolities, but people were employed for
trade rather than for manufacture. I don't really know, but I
imagine that city life 100 years ago was probably more rural than
farm life today :^)
If we really sought the Lord on what His heart is for living life in
terms of how much time is spent on frivolities, the family, and
spiritual things, I think we would get a revelation of just how wrong
the modern lifestyle is. If it's the Lord's will for us to remain
in the city we must come to terms with how much of the modern
lifestyle attitude we are going to adopt. Let's say we don't agree
with 2 children per family, or using contraception to save up for a
house, and being away from our children the majority of the week,
what are we going to do about it? I guess on the mission field we
make sacrifices, perhaps the wife and children must suffer for the
mission to be accomplished. The mission being to spend time in the
workplace to be a light in the dark. But it is a major change for
people to get that revelation. They're not in the work place to put
a roof over their family's head and to provide for their children,
the work place isn't a blessing it is a sacrifice for the Lord (if
that is what He has called you to do).
There are aspects to work that are quite enjoyable but inherently it
is corrupt. Whether it is the non-Christians you are working with or
the money motivated decisions, ultimately it is far from what God
intended for us. It is a sacrifice (or a curse).
So if there is one thing I have learned from all of this, it is, if
we are to remain in the city, we must be here for an evangelical
purpose.
Another long email. I've been thinking about this a bit lately, I
really need to get back to work :^)
God bless,
Jolon.