Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#61

Post by quantummagic »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #52
quantummagic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The country wouldn't even exist without the electoral college. It was pivotal in uniting the states under a federal government, and is working as intended. Maybe the USA should be abandoned, and all ties between the states renegotiated, but you shouldn't be able to unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

It was necessary at the time yes, it's just drastically outlived its usefulness.

Useful to who? It's working exactly as intended. You shouldn't get to unilaterally change the terms of a contract. If both parties agree, then sure. But if not, you have to accept the good with the bad, it's a compromise. We've gotten a lot more out of the deal than it has ever cost.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#62

Post by arbor_day »

I own the farm and farm it in Illinois. I owe the land through an LLC, because farming is dangerous and I don't want to go bankrupt if somebody sues me. Farms are expensive and hard to subdivide, so people will put them into a legal entity and pass down to the next generation via a trust. All of my neighbors are doing the same, so we're all counted as "not farmers" here

Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe worth $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit -- not even better than holding t-bills. The margins get better as you get bigger but still not great.

Many of the buyers keep growing their farms because it's a status symbol. Everybody in your area will instantly know you're a big wig if you're one of the X family who has 2,000 acres all without the ick that comes with running other businesses. You can't buy that kind of status in my community with anything other than land.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#63

Post by Alive-in-2025 »

legitster wrote: post #21

> Eight states in the Corn Belt — Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota and Wisconsin — restrict the size, structure and purpose of corporations that can own farmland to limit ownership by large investment funds. > More than 22% of the farmland in 12 Illinois counties with the highest rents is owned by a business entity, defined as an operation with an LLC, Inc, LTD, Co., Corp, LP or LLP…

How does a farmer who doesn't inherit land ever afford the land?

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#64

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

xnx wrote: post #32

Farming is somehow still regarded as being some mom-and-pop heartland thing rather than the highly optimized manufacturing operation it has been for decades. Direct farm employment is now just 1.2% of the population. It was 40% in 1900. The special treatments farms and farmers get is an outdated relic kept alive by the electoral college.

The special treatment of farmers is about food security. We generally trust farmers to keep delivering us food and we're willing to allow them a lot of special treatment because of that.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#65

Post by ryandrake »

isaacdl wrote: post #42
_9ptr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you carpool for money, you're a taxi. And if you take a friend on your plane, and he gives you x€ afterwards for gas money, how is that illegal? I'm sure you're right about the compliance thing in general, but I don't get your example.

It's actually an FAA regulation. If you are not a licensed commercial pilot, there are extremely strict rules on how and when you can accept ANY money for flying, use of an airplane, etc. Actually, even if you are a licensed commercial pilot, there are still strict rules around payment. You can be paid for your skill as a pilot, but you cannot, e.g. charge for giving rides in your personal airplane.

There are strict rules, but in general small plane owners who are private, non-commercial pilots may still share operating costs with someone they bring along with them. 61.113(c) permits pilots to share operating expenses of a flight with passengers provided the pilot pays at least his or her pro rata share of the operating expenses of the flight. Operating expenses are limited to fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#67

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

jghn wrote: post #50
xnx wrote: post #32

Farming is somehow still regarded as being some mom-and-pop heartland thing rather than the highly optimized manufacturing operation it has been for decades. Direct farm employment is now just 1.2% of the population. It was 40% in 1900. The special treatments farms and farmers get is an outdated relic kept alive by the electoral college.

Unfortunately "the farmers" is simply a marketing gimmick along the lines of "the children". It is used to evoke a specific image and implied set of ideals. And because of that we have to deal with all kinds of crap legislation tied to it.

This is a very online opinion. "The farmers" feed us. Very hard for me to think that's a marketing gimmick.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#68

Post by CGMthrowaway »

dlcarrier wrote: post #14

Most farms are not owned by farmers, most housing is not owned by tenants, most airplanes are not owned by airlines, etc., etc.. Vertical integration can have benefits, but it isn't necessary and has drawbacks. Even when vertically integrated, regulations are often written under the assumption that everything is leased, not owned, so compliance is easier if you own a company that owns an asset, instead of owning that…

>Most farms are not owned by farmers, most housing is not owned by tenants, most airplanes are not owned by airlines, etc., etc..

Sounds nice but it's not true in the US. A majority (60%) of US land in farms is owner-operated.[1] US homeownership is 65% meaning most housing units are owner-occupied.[2] And 60% of North American airplanes are owner-operated not leased.[3]

[1]https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-v... [2]https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2025/07/2... [3]https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economi...

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#69

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #52
quantummagic wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The country wouldn't even exist without the electoral college. It was pivotal in uniting the states under a federal government, and is working as intended. Maybe the USA should be abandoned, and all ties between the states renegotiated, but you shouldn't be able to unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

It was necessary at the time yes, it's just drastically outlived its usefulness.

Nope. I find it incredibly useful.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#70

Post by pfdietz »

petcat wrote: post #53

This is such a contrast to upstate NY where farmland is still overwhelmingly owned by individuals and families. It was nearly 75% the last time I checked. And 70% is owner-operator (the owner is also the farmer). Only a very tiny percentage of active farmland is owned by an investment company.

A report on NY farms and farmland, covering the 2012-2022 period.

https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/profile-of-agricult...

It's interesting how little of NY state is farmland (21.6%).

"When the extended family of the farmer is taken into consideration, 94.6 percent of New York farms are family-owned."

Post reply on HN