In the fifties, there was a groundswell among consumers to do work in less
time, and take that extra time to go fishing or spend quality time with the
family.

So, in comes the riding mower. The idea was that what once took you four
hours to do with inefficient tools would now take one hour, net gain three
hours for napping or fishing or golfing, or whatever.

Didn't happen.

Net result of riding lawnmowers?

You could have more grass.

Same with most "labor saving" devices. You don't save time, which is then
squandered on frivolous pursuits. You can do more work in the same amount
of time, so now you can have and maintain more "stuff."

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
news78ag.18833$QP4.12591@fed1read12...
In the fifties, there was a groundswell among consumers to do work in less
time, and take that extra time to go fishing or spend quality time with
the family.

So, in comes the riding mower. The idea was that what once took you four
hours to do with inefficient tools would now take one hour, net gain three
hours for napping or fishing or golfing, or whatever.

Didn't happen.

Net result of riding lawnmowers?

You could have more grass.

Same with most "labor saving" devices. You don't save time, which is then
squandered on frivolous pursuits. You can do more work in the same amount
of time, so now you can have and maintain more "stuff."

Steve

You are so right. Consider the modern washer and dryer. In the old days,
only the wealthy could afford to change clothes several times a day and have
the dirty ones cleaned. Now, it is *easy* to wash and dry clothes, so we
just wear more different items and wash clothes more frequently. We
probably spend just as much or more time doing laundry today as ever...

Computers are another time consumer. Used to be we spent an hour figuring
up something (say business options) using paper and pencil. Today, we invest
the same hour but get ten times the number of options, figured down to the
2nd decimal place. The extra options are generally non-starters, and
figuring guesstimates down to the 2nd decimal place is pretty much a waste
of time...

Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards that are all
grass. Often driving through the country you see houses on about five acres
all grass. Oh well, each to his own.


"Steve B" wrote in message
news78ag.18833$QP4.12591@fed1read12...
In the fifties, there was a groundswell among consumers to do work in less
time, and take that extra time to go fishing or spend quality time with
the family.

So, in comes the riding mower. The idea was that what once took you four
hours to do with inefficient tools would now take one hour, net gain three
hours for napping or fishing or golfing, or whatever.

Didn't happen.

Net result of riding lawnmowers?

You could have more grass.

Same with most "labor saving" devices. You don't save time, which is then
squandered on frivolous pursuits. You can do more work in the same amount
of time, so now you can have and maintain more "stuff."

Steve

i remember when mowing on a riding tractor seemed relaxing ..now the
zero turns with more horepower and manuverability make it a quick as
you can chore. (by choice i know) i remember when i was growing up
hearing that in the future with all the new inventions to come,life
would be easy,and there would be alot more spare time. .........but in
reality, as far as work goes, they push you just as hard to get more
done. guess your gettin old when you say.."i remember when....."...
lucas

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

Steve B writes:

You could have more grass.

A lawn is the price of some privacy from the rest of the world. More lawn
is more privacy, but the area grows as the square of the separation
distance.

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Steve B writes:

You could have more grass.

A lawn is the price of some privacy from the rest of the world. More lawn
is more privacy, but the area grows as the square of the separation
distance.

Well, sorta. In reality space is the buffer, i.e., more room between
you and the next guy. The undesireable IMO result is lawn as you have
to do -something- with that vast expanse or you have a jungle or a
hayfield.

Harry K

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards that are
all grass. Often driving through the country you see houses on about five
acres all grass. Oh well, each to his own.


When you have 5 acres of lawn, you have enough money to pay someone else
to mow it.

Bob

According to Harry K :

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Steve B writes:

You could have more grass.

A lawn is the price of some privacy from the rest of the world. More lawn
is more privacy, but the area grows as the square of the separation
distance.

Well, sorta. In reality space is the buffer, i.e., more room between
you and the next guy. The undesireable IMO result is lawn as you have
to do -something- with that vast expanse or you have a jungle or a
hayfield.

Plant trees. Less effort in the long run, far more effective
in producing privacy (and sound deadening).

[10 acres, less than 1/4 acre needs to be mowed.]
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On 16 May 2006 05:53:48 GMT, TaskProperties
wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in
:

Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards that
are all grass. Often driving through the country you see houses on
about five acres all grass. Oh well, each to his own.

================================
I can not figure out why some people want to live in a home with a
small yard..

So I guess you are correct ...to each his own....

Bob G..

Steve,

There was a good article in Scientific American back in the mid 80s which
made this same point about labor saving devices and "woman's" work. More
time is now spent cleaning the home because the standards of cleanliness
rose. Of course women do spend less time chopping wood for the stove
nowadays.

Dave M.

Jeff wrote:
Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards that are all
grass. Often driving through the country you see houses on about five acres
all grass. Oh well, each to his own.

When the economy finally crashes, they can raise sheep.



"Steve B" wrote in message
news78ag.18833$QP4.12591@fed1read12...
In the fifties, there was a groundswell among consumers to do work in less
time, and take that extra time to go fishing or spend quality time with
the family.

So, in comes the riding mower. The idea was that what once took you four
hours to do with inefficient tools would now take one hour, net gain three
hours for napping or fishing or golfing, or whatever.

Didn't happen.

Net result of riding lawnmowers?

You could have more grass.

Same with most "labor saving" devices. You don't save time, which is then
squandered on frivolous pursuits. You can do more work in the same amount
of time, so now you can have and maintain more "stuff."

Steve

On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:44:20 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Steve B writes:

You could have more grass.

A lawn is the price of some privacy from the rest of the world. More lawn
is more privacy, but the area grows as the square of the separation
distance.

That's insane. A HEDGE is the price of privacy.
The lawn should be big enough to serve as a fire-break
and any yard-based games/work you've got to do,
and beyond that should be gardens, orchards, meadow,
ponds, tree-farm, or something. Large expanses of
lawn are a symptom of an ego problem, a paucity
of imagination, or someone who needs a clear field
of fire.

There was a good article in Scientific American back in the mid 80s which
made this same point about labor saving devices and "woman's" work. More
time is now spent cleaning the home because the standards of cleanliness
rose. Of course women do spend less time chopping wood for the stove
nowadays.

I don't think so. Judging from my grandmother, you had to
keep an extra person in the house full time, just to sweep.
That's the REAL purpose of extended families.

Steve B wrote:
In the fifties, there was a groundswell among consumers to do work in less
time, and take that extra time to go fishing or spend quality time with the
family.

So, in comes the riding mower. The idea was that what once took you four
hours to do with inefficient tools would now take one hour, net gain three
hours for napping or fishing or golfing, or whatever.

I've got a robot that cuts my lawn. Apart from the couple of hours
that was first required to set it up 3 years ago, I spend about 60
seconds cutting my lawn.

Some time saving devices actually do save time.

Goedjn writes:

A HEDGE is the price of privacy.

If you can't afford the space, a fence/wall/hedge/etc is the next best
thing. But proximity is incompatible with privacy. Especially in the age
of machines and electronic amplification.

"Larry Bud" wrote:

I've got a robot that cuts my lawn. Apart from the couple of hours
that was first required to set it up 3 years ago, I spend about 60
seconds cutting my lawn.

What model is it?

On Tue, 16 May 2006 13:45:19 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Goedjn writes:

A HEDGE is the price of privacy.

If you can't afford the space, a fence/wall/hedge/etc is the next best
thing. But proximity is incompatible with privacy. Especially in the age
of machines and electronic amplification.

Did you even think about that before you posted?

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Harry K :

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Steve B writes:

You could have more grass.

A lawn is the price of some privacy from the rest of the world. More
lawn
is more privacy, but the area grows as the square of the separation
distance.

Well, sorta. In reality space is the buffer, i.e., more room between
you and the next guy. The undesireable IMO result is lawn as you have
to do -something- with that vast expanse or you have a jungle or a
hayfield.

Plant trees. Less effort in the long run, far more effective
in producing privacy (and sound deadening).

[10 acres, less than 1/4 acre needs to be mowed.]
That is what my retirement house is gonna be- not visible from the the road.
Only lawn will be a small patch up at the road so you can non-blindly pull
into traffic, and a firebreak around the house, so the place gets enough
sunlight to not go moldy on me. (Houses that never see sunlight always reek
like a cabin, in my experience....) But I'll look for a place where the
trees are already there- with my non-green thumb, trying to keep plants
alive is expensive, pointless, and downright depressing....

aem sends...

Jeff wrote:

Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards
that are all grass. Often driving through the country you see
houses on about five acres all grass. Oh well, each to his own.

There nothing like getting out at the crack of dawn, turning on
your riding mower, putting a cooler of Lawnmower Ale in back, and
start cutting. It takes about two and a half beers per acre. When
you're done, you clean up the mower, go inside, mention how tired
you are, and crash. It's terrific.

Just make sure you leave your wive a list of every thing you need
for your Sunday morning two six-pack project!

Dick

a jungle or a hayfield

Just let it grow for 5 years. Then rent a self-propelled walk-behind
high-powered brush mower (at least 30" cut with 17HP or better motor)
and clear out all the weeds and bramble and smaller trees. Make a few
wide paths that can be maintained with a riding mower.

I did this on 5 acres of my property and it looks great. Some of the
trees are 18' tall after only 5 years. What a view from the bay
window. In the middle I made a small clearing for a secluded picnic
area surrounded by Honeysuckle and Serviceberry and Russian Olive.

According to ameijers :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
Plant trees. Less effort in the long run, far more effective
in producing privacy (and sound deadening).

[10 acres, less than 1/4 acre needs to be mowed.]
That is what my retirement house is gonna be- not visible from the the road.
Only lawn will be a small patch up at the road so you can non-blindly pull
into traffic, and a firebreak around the house, so the place gets enough
sunlight to not go moldy on me. (Houses that never see sunlight always reek
like a cabin, in my experience....) But I'll look for a place where the
trees are already there- with my non-green thumb, trying to keep plants
alive is expensive, pointless, and downright depressing....

For some strange reason, cutting down everything on the property
is a rather common trait in home building. Then you have to buy
back your own topsoil...

It's a good idea to consider "filling in" gaps etc., as part
of good management practises.

If you can find a source of seedling trees (eg: a reforestation
nursery), particularly conifers, you can plant a lot for cheap,
and they usually require _no_ maintenance.

Back in '93, we bought 250 white pines for about $50 and planted
them ourselves. Now some of them are 30', we've had 5% failure,
and we haven't done a _thing_ to maintain them.

Back in 2000 we did it again with about 600 trees (white pine,
red pine, red oak and some shrubs) - about $170 worth of trees
and another $150 worth of teenage labor ;-)

[An experienced seedling planter can do well over 100 trees
an hour - in fact, a _good_ one up to about 400/hour depending
on site conditions.]

Deciduous trees need a bit of assistance, and as a result of not
giving them very much, they didn't do that well (70% failure
rate is not considered unusual). But the pines are doing
extremely well (10% loss).

[The nursery used to be an arm of the provincial government, which
was subsequently "sold" to the employees, and now they run it.
They'll even send someone out to help you plan out what/how much
to buy.]
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

If you can find a source of seedling trees (eg: a reforestation
nursery), particularly conifers, you can plant a lot for cheap,
and they usually require _no_ maintenance.


On the other hand, walnut or beech trees will feed you in
your dotage, and help put your grandchildren through college,
so plant a mix. And *NOBODY* plants boxwood for
lumber anymore. :-(

"RobertM" wrote in message
...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Yeah I never could figure out why folks want really large yards that are
all grass. Often driving through the country you see houses on about
five acres all grass. Oh well, each to his own.


When you have 5 acres of lawn, you have enough money to pay someone
else to mow it.

Bob

not around middle georgia...land is fairly cheap..I have 15 acres on a
modest income from a one job family.I only have 1 acre of grass though...lol

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


If you can find a source of seedling trees (eg: a reforestation
nursery), particularly conifers, you can plant a lot for cheap,
and they usually require _no_ maintenance.


On the other hand, walnut or beech trees will feed you in
your dotage, and help put your grandchildren through college,
so plant a mix. And *NOBODY* plants boxwood for
lumber anymore. :-(

especially black walnut.

digitalmaster:
not around middle georgia...land is fairly cheap..I have 15 acres on
a modest income from a one job family.I only have 1 acre of grass
though...lol

How cheap? How much would 15 acres set me back? Wooded or field, with
access.
--
Mac Cool