Living a Ration Book Life

[LizzieMaine]

We have a vigorous thread in the Powder Room about Ration Book Dieting, which leads me to wonder about those who might have the inclination to take that idea beyond the idea of nutrition. How about an experiment in living other aspects of your life by the Ration Book?

For Americans, this would mean:

No purchases of new cars, new household appliances, new electronic equipment, new telephones, new bicycles, new office equipment, new sewing machines, new woolen rugs or carpeting, new bedclothing, new nylon products, new rubber goods, or new firearms. What you now own is all you'll have for the period of your experiment.

No garment you purchase may have:

For menswear:

Double-breasted jackets or coats
Cuffed pants
Vests
Extra pockets
Pocket flaps
Elbow patches
Continuous waistbands on pants
Belted or fancy-back coats.
Rise on pants higher than 11 inches.
Overcoats longer than 43 inches
Pleats and tucks, whether real or simulated.

For womenswear:

French cuffs on sleeves
Double-thickness yokes
"Balloon" type sleeves
Shirred, pleated, or tucked construction
Inside or patch pockets of any woolen fabric
Interlinings containing any woolen fabric.
Jackets longer than 25 inches
Skirts longer than 17 inches from the floor.
Skirts greater than 72 inches circumference
Skirt hems greater than 2 inches.
Full-length formal gowns, with the exception of wedding gowns.
Any bias-cut garment.

No more than two pairs of shoes per person per year.

Twelve gallons of gasoline a month, the average amount you'd have gotten on an A ration. No pleasure driving.

No more than five tires per vehicle to be owned at any time.

No new antifreeze solutions. Save your previous winter's solution for reuse when flushing your radiator in the spring.

No vehicle may be operated at a greater speed than 35mph

No household thermostat may be set higher than 65 degrees at any time.

No unnecessary travel of any kind, whether by private vehicle or public conveyance.

Your use of paper must be reduced across the board by at least ten percent.

No canned beer, coffee, or hams.

No new construction of any single family home.

No new installation of any stove, furnace, or boiler in any single-family home.

No new installation of copper piping in any single-family home.

You are strongly encouraged to devote at least ten percent of your gross income to the purchase of government savings bonds.

Bear in mind these are all American restrictions, and there were many others besides those listed. But this gives you a general idea. Europeans may substitute the even more stringent regulations in effect in their own country.

Could you do it?

 

[HudsonHawk]

I could easily do it, aside from the gasoline ration. Twelve gallons lasts me three or four days. No way I could go a month on it. Other than that, however, I probably meet those requirements now, at least for a year or so at a time.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

No new construction of any single family home.

Interestingly there are whole neighborhoods of single family homes in the cities of Lakewood and Bellflower, California (suburbs of Los Angeles) that, according to zillow dot com, were built in 1942-43. But then again both cities are right near Long Beach, California which was the home of the Douglas Aircraft plant (most of the C-47s were built there). Were there exemptions for defense workers' housing?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Correct. The only permitted single-family construction was for demonstrated necessity to the war effort. "Just because I wanted it" was not a valid reason for much of anything during the war years, and unless someone trying this experiment worked on the line at Lockheed, they likely wouldn't qualify.

 

[sheeplady]

Interestingly there are whole neighborhoods of single family homes in the cities of Lakewood and Bellflower, California (suburbs of Los Angeles) that, according to zillow dot com, were built in 1942-43. But then again both cities are right near Long Beach, California which was the home of the Douglas Aircraft plant (most of the C-47s were built there). Were there exemptions for defense workers' housing?

Our home was built in 1942. It was out in the sticks then (far removed from the city, as the houses built between us and the city proper are all 50s homes). It did have galvanized plumbing, however (which was rusted solid when we bought it). It is sort of near some factories, but again, there were open spaces (now homes) between the factories and this one.

That makes me really curious. Did this start in 42 or 43?

ETA: It's about a mile in either direction (towards the mill housing or towards the city) between our home and existing homes at the time it was built.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It wasn't one single regulation -- it was a combination of War Labor Board and War Production Board rulings in effect by the end of 1942 that made it essentially impossible to construct a single-family home without a demonstrable necessity to the war effort, because the materials and labor simply weren't available. For example, a farm house that burned down could be rebuilt, since farming was considered an essential industry. A guy building a log cabin in the woods with trees he cut himself on his own land might be able to get away with it -- but why wasn't he in uniform if he's able bodied enough to do that?

Some guy wanting a bigger house because he wanted to live in a better neighborhood, however, was out of luck. And why wasn't that guy in uniform too?

Basically, any construction project you wanted to do during the war era was at the mercy of various boards and agencies, and unless you could prove there was an essential need, the answer would be No. "Don't you know there's a war on?"

Speaking of regulations, if you *were* a worker in an essential industry, as of April 1943 the War Manpower Commission made it illegal for you to quit your job for a higher-paying job with a non-essential employer under any circumstances, or to move to a higher-paying job with an essential employer unless your previous employer granted you a release demonstrating to the WMC that your skills were not essential to his operation. About 27,000,000 Americans were thus frozen in their jobs for the duration of the war.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I forgot to add that the Navy had a huge presence in Long Beach as well. It was where a large part of the Pacific Fleet's battleships were based before they moved to Pearl Harbor.

 

[Otis]

How about an experiment in living other aspects of your life by the Ration Book?...<snippage>...Could you do it?

Well, yes....people can do a lot of things if pressed. Some even survived Buchenwald & Treblinka.

A better question is "why would anyone want to try?" Wasn't it Your Guy Wesley who said to do the best you can, as much, as often, etc?

Knowing that each of us has only a limited, undefined period of time to accomplish our life's work, shouldn't we invest in the best, most efficient tools & equipment, in combination with our talents and abilities, to accomplish that task? If the answer is "yes" then how can arbitrary, enforced rationing be anything other than evil?

 

[LizzieMaine]

A lot of us here hold to what get called "Golden Era Values," among which were a desire to do as much as we can while consuming as few resources as possible. Ration Book Living might be one way to make ourselves think hard about exactly how much we consume. We don't live on an infinite Earth, after all, and it's the height of egotism for us to think we have an infinite right to consume an infinite share of its products.

 

[Stormy]

Yes, I could do it. I do have a fast car, so that speed limit would be a real challenge. Public transportation is lousy around here, so I'd have to be really creative with the gasoline ration and driving restrictions.

 

[Otis]

A lot of us here hold to what get called "Golden Era Values," among which were a desire to do as much as we can while consuming as few resources as possible.

Fair enough, if that's what you as an individual desire but what you described was a massive, faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy dictating living and spending conditions. My inner libertarian is cringes at the thought.

 

[Touchofevil]

Either you can or cannot do it. Why is there so often the desire to turn a thread into an argument by twisting the proposed statement? No need to make more out of it then it already is.

 

[Sharpsburg]

And knock it off with the "my dear girl," stuff, too!

 

[Otis]

Hm, well there could be a confusion of terms. When I use the word "argument" I mean it in the academic sense. Something like "I disagree". It's not at all 'argument' in the belligerent sense. There are no heated passions or raised voices.

Even so, if I've violated the spirit of the proceedings, my apologies

 

[Vera Godfrey]

I could do everything but the gas. I could probably make 12 gallons stretch over two weeks, but not the whole month.

 

[sheeplady]

And knock it off with the "my dear girl," stuff, too!

Yeah, that's insulting. The only people you call "girl" are your girl friends, your girlfriend, and children.


Good to know about the housing rules. I would assume our house was built in the beginning of 42.

I could do *most* of it. I haven't bought shoes in a long time. I could live with two pairs a year, that would be plenty for me and my husband. The clothing restrictions though would be toughest I imagine. But that's the thing for creativity. The gas would be ok for me (I use public transport) but would kill my husband who commutes 1.5 hours each way. (Fortunately, his car gets low 50s mpg, so he uses about 12 gallons per week.) Ideally though, we'd live where my husband works because my job would likely be secondary to his, not the other way around given the ethos of the time.

 

[Touchofevil]

Hm, well there could be a confusion of terms. When I use the word "argument" I mean it in the academic sense. Something like "I disagree". It's not at all 'argument' in the belligerent sense. There are no heated passions or raised voices.

Even so, if I've violated the spirit of the proceedings, my apologies

Thank you and I apologize for misjudging your intent.

 

[CharleneC]

A lot of us here hold to what get called "Golden Era Values," among which were a desire to do as much as we can while consuming as few resources as possible. Ration Book Living might be one way to make ourselves think hard about exactly how much we consume. We don't live on an infinite Earth, after all, and it's the height of egotism for us to think we have an infinite right to consume an infinite share of its products.

Sounds more like hippie tree-hugging values than anything else.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And knock it off with the "my dear girl," stuff, too!

Yeah, you can only get away with that with me if you're Sydney Greenstreet.

And as far as "libertarian" arguments go, I'm not the least bit interested in bringing that discussion into this thread. If your sensibilities are offended by what I'm discussing, you can take them out in the hall and apply a cold compress to their forehead until they settle down.

 

[Touchofevil]

Yeah, you can only get away with that with me if you're Sydney Greenstreet.

lol