StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The thread on Frugalism and all the Peak Oil threads has got me wondering what was the best way to scavenge good stuff from the neightborhood (or for those who are more cynical, how to take advantage of other people's wastefulness).

When is the best time to go looking for discarded stuff? How often should you go? And for scavenging for food, what is the best, least diarhea-inducing way to secure good food for free (or at least at a discount)?

Eulogy wrote:The thread on Frugalism and all the Peak Oil threads has got me wondering what was the best way to scavenge good stuff from the neightborhood (or for those who are more cynical, how to take advantage of other people's wastefulness).

When is the best time to go looking for discarded stuff? How often should you go? And for scavenging for food, what is the best, least diarhea-inducing way to secure good food for free (or at least at a discount)?

I would suspect that it depends quite heavily on your location. Someone who lives in, say, Bumfuq Suburbiana, California, would have a different time scavenging than myself, who lives in the middle of Manhattan.

It's very easy to do and very inexpensive (other than the gas money which is of course irrevelant) and requires a working automobile. You drive around neighborhoods and see what couches and other things people are throwing out. Take it and then all the better for you nobody will call the cops. It's not stealing so don't feel too bad about doing it. After all, another man's trash is another man's couch.

Man, how hard up are you guys for cash?

I think it could be considered steeling from the city since garbage put on the street is considered city property.

Man, how hard up are you guys for cash?

My family does it all the time. Unlike Americans, we rarely through stuff out however. The clothes I am wearing a lot of it I've had since high school. Family of 4 living together. No one is working plus loan payments and more coming up. I'm the only one with health insurance and that's because I go to school. I am probably the poorest person in the board however.

Alot of places it is actually against city ordinances, hence illegal.

It is funny, at work we get calls quite often for people "stealing" trash that was put curbside. Usually stuff like furniture is what they report being taken.

Death from the Sea wrote:Alot of places it is actually against city ordinances, hence illegal.

It is funny, at work we get calls quite often for people "stealing" trash that was put curbside. Usually stuff like furniture is what they report being taken.

I can see it being illegal in some of the more rural areas, but I don't see how anyone could possibly enforce it in greater metropolitan cities like Chicago or NYC, if only by virtue of the sheer number of homeless people who do that sort of thing.

General Zod wrote:I can see it being illegal in some of the more rural areas, but I don't see how anyone could possibly enforce it in greater metropolitan cities like Chicago or NYC, if only by virtue of the sheer number of homeless people who do that sort of thing.

Generally, you might get enforcement if there's a cop walking by at the exact moment you're trying to haul off a couch from somebody's trash pen, but that's a big maybe in of itself.

Maxentius wrote:

General Zod wrote:I can see it being illegal in some of the more rural areas, but I don't see how anyone could possibly enforce it in greater metropolitan cities like Chicago or NYC, if only by virtue of the sheer number of homeless people who do that sort of thing.

Generally, you might get enforcement if there's a cop walking by at the exact moment you're trying to haul off a couch from somebody's trash pen, but that's a big maybe in of itself.

Usually laws like that are not so very strictly enforced and just used by officers when needed.

Like a known car burglar that was wanted for questioning by detectives would be arrested for dumpster diving if he was found doing so. That way the detectives can speak to the suspect and possibly clear the case. In other words a tool for police to use.

Aside from areas where the dumpster diving is causing a problem.

Just remember, one thing that IS illegal is looting recycling bins. So, don't do that.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Just remember, one thing that IS illegal is looting recycling bins. So, don't do that.

You have to be a special brand of stupid to mistake a recycling bin for a dumpster, generally.

In my experience, offices in light industrial areas are a goldmine of discarded good quality furniture. I've furnished about half of my apartment in this manner, including a few items (most notably a large, solid oak desk, and a matching solid oak sideboard) which would have cost me hundreds of dollars to buy, and which are still in very good condition. Having a stone workshop nearby is also nice, since they often throw out perfectly good marble, granite, and other stone countertop pieces if they have miscut them slightly, or chipped a corner. I've got 2 coffee tables that I built from such discards, and they look fantastic.

Dumpster diving for food, OTOH, is not something that I would consider.

General Zod wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Just remember, one thing that IS illegal is looting recycling bins. So, don't do that.

You have to be a special brand of stupid to mistake a recycling bin for a dumpster, generally.

Not 'mistaking', but some people think 'trash is trash' and don't realize the difference.

I have been recycling cans and 28 lbs of cans netted me $15 and I also recycled an old dryer worth $10 at a scrap metal place.

You could make a living recycling appliances dumped on the curb

CaptainChewbacca wrote:

General Zod wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Just remember, one thing that IS illegal is looting recycling bins. So, don't do that.

You have to be a special brand of stupid to mistake a recycling bin for a dumpster, generally.

Not 'mistaking', but some people think 'trash is trash' and don't realize the difference.

Like I said, a special brand of stupid.

First of all: consider eating food took from garbage dumpster only if it is the only option to avoid death from starvation; if you have no choice, boil everything before consumption. It is clearly an health hazard, there is a veritable host of diseases you can catch from the various local pathogens.

Also, I apologize for the digression (and suspect that I am going to look like a total asshole, but the sentiment is sincere), I am startled by the fact that educated persons that presumably live in first world countries and have access to an internet connection have to seriously contemplate this option... and feeling rather guilty (irrationally, it is still better than buying shoes sewed in sweatshops) about my new pair of about-500$ Dior sneakers. I suppose than I am leading a sheltered life (on the other hand, my country is in theory poorer than the United States).

Melchior wrote:First of all: consider eating food took from garbage dumpster only if it is the only option to avoid death from starvation; if you have no choice, boil everything before consumption. It is clearly an health hazard, there is a veritable host of diseases you can catch from the various local pathogens.

Also, I apologize for the digression (and suspect that I am going to look like a total asshole, but the sentiment is sincere), I am startled by the fact that educated persons that presumably live in first world countries and have access to an internet connection have to seriously contemplate this option... and feeling rather guilty (irrationally, it is still better than buying shoes sewed in sweatshops) about my new pair of about-500$ Dior sneakers. I suppose than I am leading a sheltered life (on the other hand, my country is in theory poorer than the United States).

$500 for fucking shoes? That's insane. I wouldn't consider more than $70 for a very nice pair.

If I went to a public library I would have free internet access. Also, at least in Indiana, there are local "employment offices" run by the state for the benefit of those seeking employment which also allow on-line access at no charge to the user. During the worst part of my recent bout with unemployment I actually investigated that possibility, as so many employers now want you to apply on-line. So poverty is not a bar to internet access in the US, although having to leave home to get your e-mail is inconvenient.

One of the things that sucks about poverty is the attitude of other people that if you aren't completely destitute you must be faking it somehow. For instance:

If you're poor, how come you have a car? - because I bought and paid for it years ago.

If you're poor, how come you have internet access? - see above.

If you're poor, how come you have that new designer clothing item? - I bought it used.

If you're poor, how come you can afford steak? - because after a month of living on rice and beans I have a few extra pennies to put towards a slightly different form of protein.

If you're poor, how come you have a new winter coat? - because someone took pity on me and bought it for me.

If you're poor, how come you have a cell phone? - because I bought pre-paid minutes and poor people have emergencies/need to keep in touch, too.

And so on.

If you're to the point of eating out of dumpsters, I'd think you're better off going to homeless shelter and eating there. At least they're legally required to serve food that meets a certain standard of cleanliness.

General Zod wrote: $500 for fucking shoes? That's insane. I wouldn't consider more than $70 for a very nice pair.

They are, well, beautiful. I have nothing against persons that don't see the point in that kind of expenditure, but from my point of view, it is justified: the ability to live among (houses, furniture, various art objects), use (pens, silverware...) and wear beautiful (not necessarily expensive, even if, sadly, it is often true) objects is one of the very few things that I manage to derive pleasure from (together with being able to help other persons).

Broomstick wrote: One of the things that sucks about poverty is the attitude of other people that if you aren't completely destitute you must be faking it somehow.

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to imply that persons having internet access couldn't be poor or having economic difficulties. What I want to say was that there is a stark contrast between the (relative) modernity of the infrastructure and the inexcusable inability to provide for the unfortunate.

Superman wrote:If you're to the point of eating out of dumpsters, I'd think you're better off going to homeless shelter and eating there. At least they're legally required to serve food that meets a certain standard of cleanliness.

You mean food pantries. Food pantries feed everyone who falls into the "hungry" category - homeless shelters concentrate on the homeless. One does not need to be homeless to be in need of food assistance.

And I agree - food pantries/shelters are preferable to eating out of dumpsters.

Melchior wrote: They are, well, beautiful. I have nothing against persons that don't see the point in that kind of expenditure, but from my point of view, it is justified: the ability to live among (houses, furniture, various art objects), use (pens, silverware...) and wear beautiful (not necessarily expensive, even if, sadly, it is often true) objects is one of the very few things that I manage to derive pleasure from (together with being able to help other persons).

You're one of those tards who camp out in front of a shoe store the moment they release the latest brand name sneaker for several hours just so they can get a pair before anyone else, aren't you?

Melchior wrote:

General Zod wrote: $500 for fucking shoes? That's insane. I wouldn't consider more than $70 for a very nice pair.

They are, well, beautiful. I have nothing against persons that don't see the point in that kind of expenditure, but from my point of view, it is justified: the ability to live among (houses, furniture, various art objects), use (pens, silverware...) and wear beautiful (not necessarily expensive, even if, sadly, it is often true) objects is one of the very few things that I manage to derive pleasure from (together with being able to help other persons).

If you can actually afford to spend that much money on a pair of shoes (your other bills and obligations are met) and shoes are important to you, then I fully support your right to purchase and enjoy such shoes. If I want the freedom to set my own priorities then I can't argue with those you set for yourself. I will also say that I can't imagine spending that much on shoes myself.

I have never paid more than $120 for a pair of shoes (a very sturdy and practical pair of hiking boots, actually, that I still use occasionally. They've lasted me 30 years, a very good purchase indeed)

Melchior wrote:

General Zod wrote: $500 for fucking shoes? That's insane. I wouldn't consider more than $70 for a very nice pair.

They are, well, beautiful. I have nothing against persons that don't see the point in that kind of expenditure, but from my point of view, it is justified: the ability to live among (houses, furniture, various art objects), use (pens, silverware...) and wear beautiful (not necessarily expensive, even if, sadly, it is often true) objects is one of the very few things that I manage to derive pleasure from (together with being able to help other persons).

That in my book makes you a superficial asshole.

There is no way to concievably justify that price for shoes, no matter how fucking pretty they are. Sneakers/Trainers even less so. I've hit nearly the $200 mark for shoes, but those were heavy duty, waterproof, steel toecapped work boots...those were a saftey concern.