— Bob-a-job-alog-a-roonie

In my next book

(which makes it sound like I pump these out…)

I will argue for a new ism that is not capitalism, or socialism, but somewhere in-between.

This might not make the cut, as it is too radical and odd:

Every time you buy something, four other people get the same thing.

It is an extension of the new businesses who have a model of “buy one, we give one to charity” model.

Let’s start with a basic example. The richest person in the planet wants to buy a kilo of rice, to make a curry. The poorest person on the plant wants some rice, just to survive, to feed their hunger.

Rice is sold at auction. A global, digital auction. Unlike normal auctions, when you win you need to buy four of the item, and you only get to own one of those for yourself. The other three get distributed according to rules (yet to be determined – it is 4am and I am well drunk…)

The new model doesn’t change capitalism much – those who can most afford something bid the most, and win the auction. The order of things doesn’t change, with the rich feeling empowered and superior. But it does bring them down a notch.

But it is surely good for society, when someone buys a $50 jacket, three other people get one. And when someone buys a $500K sports car, three other “undeserving” people get one.

OK, the reality is that the homeless person doesn’t keep and drive the $500K sports car. They sell it to a rich person. So the exclusivity remains, but the wealth gets spread. And every purchase causes thought, maybe even deep thought.

(Obviously this only works for bulk, manufactured products…)

OK… a few hours later and a fraction more sober… there needs to be an algorithm. People who enjoy the benefits of “free stuff” will lose those benefits, gradually, as they participate in society economically. People can’t just free-ride on free stuff.

The idea could be described as truly trickle down. The affluence of the rich truly benefits the poor.

Certainly not. There are things in life we choose to spend on, and things we have to have. And in everything there are options and price points. I may not be typical in nature, but I am on a salary that is normal for someone of my age. Here’s what I do spend, and mostly I couldn’t spend much less.

• Food – $70/day week, if I take my own lunch to work and cook my own meals. I might eat out if I wasn’t single
• Water – free, comes from a tap
• Alcohol – $20/week to get drunk as a skunk 4 times a week, if I chose to (cask wine). In reality I also go to the pub but don’t need to
• Transport – $40/week, tram to the city. This is normal for most of Melbourne if they choose public transport
• Shoes and Clothes – I’m not into fashion, so $10/week would be plenty
• Utilities  and insurance – $40/week and I don’t have health insurance
• Entertainment – $90/week for books, pay TV, internet, Spotify, going out. Otherwise I’d go mad…
• Child support – which I would pay even if I didn’t have to, $175/week
• Saving – for holidays (paying off credit card from holidays is more likely), is $100/week

I think you get the idea – I live quite economically, and it doesn’t bother me at all. Material possessions and preciousness are not me. But if they were, my expenses would be way higher.

• Housing – $430/week. I live in the inner suburbs, because I need to to stay sane. I could live in a very shitty alternative to my 1-bed apartment and pay $350/week. The most despicable of private accommodation in the outer suburbs is $250+/week and I’d literally rather live in a tent.

So, roughly speaking, I spend $1,000/week, and 43% of that is on rent*. If I chose a less nice apartment it would be 35%. And that is as someone who is frugal. If I spent what most people spent on non-essentials, I’d be broke. Or have no life whatsoever.

The perceived wisdom in developed countries is 30% of income should be the maximum you spend on rent, and in Australia the average in capital cities is 40%. Couples have it much easier, obviously. As a single person, being in a relationship could be seen as a massive economic advantage, and while that couldn’t be a motivation for me, it is food for thought.