Farmers always worked from home • Hacker News Board

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#151

Post by kbenson » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124

chirau wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree with you. Or maybe farming is just terrible here in the US because of all the rules and crap with companies like Monsanto. Where I come from, farming is a pretty fulfilling endeavor. Both my parents left senior corporate roles to pursue farming because they love it so much. Even when they made their first money working, they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend. They star…

I think reasonable people can agree that there is not a single farming experience. There are more and less successful farms based on their business model and business environment. There are also differences in people's disposition. There are hobby farms, family farms, and multinational businesses. In my experience, the biggest concerns are crop performance and government policy. All the farmers I know in california r…

> the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation.

To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could connect to the aquifer you could take as much as you want, regardless of your size of land or need, and the collapse of the aquifers during overuse in drought caused entire cities to lose access to water as their wells dried up, and the farmers that could afford to dig deeper wells to access more water did so. Much of this was in support of farmers switching to more water intensive crops that were worth more (like almonds) because they could take advantage of the lax water rights of the state.

This has been a long time coming and reported widely and loudly for a decade now. Farmers in CA knew they had a choice over that time to either try to be part of a solution by switching to less water intensive crops and try to help (and possibly not be entirely caught unprepared as a major resource went from essentially free and unlimited to definitely not) but lose out on the additional income that granted them, or to continue to try to cash in on the status quo and make the problem worse but as a gamble because they could be caught out if it changes from under them, or to remove themselves from that market and do something else.

I don't wish death or suicide on any of them, but it's not like this isn't a problem they had no part in bringing about, or like the entire state should suffer because they wanted to keep the status quo, so my sympathy is offset to some degree by those facts.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#152

Post by randomdata » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146

randomdata wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, I was originally talking about people you actually think of farmers. Not people like Bill Gates who are technically farmers but have little association with the industry. It remains that it is a pretty good gig if your capital costs are covered. I'm a farmer myself (I do the work, not just an investment), so I say that from first-hand experience. The amount you can make per hour of work is incredible, and…

Well that's interesting. What crop and acreage are you working with? I was a part owner of 100 acres of pistachios for 20 years and margins were very thin. Labor, electricity, and periodic capital inputs were the major costs. Labor and management was year round with no off season. I in no way want to invalidate your experience, but don't understand excluding the capital input costs and claiming it is lucrative. How m…

> What crop and acreage are you working with?

Corn, soys, wheat, edible beans. Understandably, different types of farms will be different.

> Labor and management was year round with no off season.

In this northern climate there isn't much you can do in the winter under the blanket of snow, save animal husbandry. And even then I know quite a few farmers with animals who only keep animals through a portion of year exactly so that they can have time to themselves.

> don't understand excluding the capital input costs and claiming it is lucrative.

Funny things can happen, but as a rule your major capital is retained. Farmland, if anything, tends to increase in value. I don't find machinery depreciates much either (the new stuff becomes way more expensive instead). On the day you retire, you expect that you will get back everything you put in and then some. That is why most farmers are willing to work a second job to build up that wealth.

Input costs are, of course, already factored in to the income potential of the business.

It is a low margin business when you're trying to pay for land (mortgage or lease), but one that is covered, there is significant income potential (with all the caveats of farming being unpredictable). And yes, that income comes as a product of investing. That's what farming is all about.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#153

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #151

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think reasonable people can agree that there is not a single farming experience. There are more and less successful farms based on their business model and business environment. There are also differences in people's disposition. There are hobby farms, family farms, and multinational businesses. In my experience, the biggest concerns are crop performance and government policy. All the farmers I know in california r…

> the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could connect to the aquifer you could take as much as you want, regardless of your size of land or need, and the collapse of the aquifers during overuse in drought caused entire cities to lose access to water as their wells dried up, and the farmers that could afford…

I'm for balancing aquifers for long term sustainability, but the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them.

If the state wants your house for public benefit, they have to pay you for it at market rate. They can't just size it and throw you on the street. The current implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (GWMA) is largely ignores prior ownership and is in conflict with CA property law.

[edit] The 2014 GWMA did not dissolve groundwater rights, but rather enabled the levying of arbitrarily high fines for exercising those rights. They don't have to use eminent domain to purchase the groundwater rights, but farmers cant use them. In this way, it hopes to let the sate have its cake and eat it too.

I suspect the implementation will eventually be overturned and revised by the courts, but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#154

Post by spelunker » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #149

spelunker wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the former. I have relatives who farm, and for farming to be profitable requires a _lot_ of product to sell. I also have non-blood relatives trying to start a small farm in rural Pennsylvania. They tried growing and selling oat last year. Apparently it wasn't worth the effort unless they were going to grow and sell it at at huge quantities. Farming isn't necessarily traditions-based. My established farmi…

how is the middle man situation in Northern America ? in France, some kinds of products are made unbearably hard to produce because they'll negotiate you to death (biggest milk corp. lactalis for instance) while they make good premiums on cheese / yogurts etc Maybe with a different distribution structure producers can get a bit more profits and people nicer / fresher products ?

That's a good question and I don't have a good answer for you. I know some of my relatives produce and sell beet sugar through a cooperative, but I also know that they will sell other crops to large distributors like you mention, or even sometimes directly to grocery stores.

I try to buy the coop sugar when I can.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#155

Post by morpheos137 » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #79

spelunker wrote: post #55

This whole article reads like someone out of touch. We went to the countryside to observe the pastoral lifestyle! Hey look at these farmers! They're "working from home" all the time! Wow look at them milking cows! Farming is a hell of a lot of work and they have a poor "work life balance" out of necessity. There's too much to do. Maybe they find it rewarding, but I don't think it's an ideal everyone should be strivin…

The only people who think farming sounds great are people who have never farmed. Having all your income depend on the weather or random government policies/tariffs is heart breaking. You need tremendous scale to weather the storm. Go watch "Clarkson's Farm" to get a glimpse of the realities. (Remember that he is extremely rich and doesn't even care if the farm loses money.) The only good thing about farming is that y…

as with everything in life it real depends on what you are growing or raising and what kind of other circumstances you are dealing with. It is not reasonable to make sweeping generalisations either way.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#156

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:08 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #4

> In the 1800s, 90 percent of the US population lived on a farm, rocking their WFH setups. How did they all survive without mental breakdowns and Harvard Business Review articles praising strict Work-Life Balance? They didn't? Child mortality was 500 times as high as today in 1800 in the United States, and in the first half of the century, most of the people working on farms were slaves that I'm pretty sure had plent…

For a compelling, if morbid, insight to the petite horrors and tragedies of farming and small-town life, see Wisconsin Death Trip:

a 1973 non-fiction book by Michael Lesy, based on a collection of late 19th century photographs by Jackson County, Wisconsin, photographer Charles Van Schaick – mostly taken in the city of Black River Falls – and local news reports from the same period. It emphasizes the harsh aspects of Midwestern rural life under the pressures of crime, disease, mental illness, and urbanization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Death_Trip

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#157

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:10 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #119

A big difference between farming and WFH discourse is that if you own the farm, your labor is all to your benefit and controlled by you (even if circumstances can demand a lot). Office work is dictated by bosses that control you. Your labor and reward are alienated from you. Strict separation is a good idea because that shit is toxic.

That "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#158

Post by watwut » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:30 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #122

mason55 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus laundry. The invention of the washing machine is literally one of the things that allowed women to get jobs outside the house.

Laundry used to be extremely uncommon activity, among other things it damages extremely expensive clothing. It really only started to consume significant time as the production of textiles exploded.

It was done, it had to be done still. Just not that often and it was massive work.

Source: I visited laundry museum once and it was pretty clear they have done it.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#159

Post by exolymph » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

TaupeRanger wrote: post #123

gifwithaj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you didn't mean to cause offense, but this comment is so incredibly frustrating and highlights the incredible ignorance and stereotyping of rural America that's still common. My reaction to this comment was to shudder the same way as if someone had said "A black person on hacker news? Please tell me more" Modern farmers are polyglot technologists. Hybrid GMO seeds are selected to optimize yield in their spec…

Yikes...accusing me of something akin to racism seems harsh. I am a musician myself, and am always curious about what brings people from other disciplines to HN. Apologies if I caused any offense.

It's not personal, the point is that he's frustrated that misconceptions are so widespread and that people don't question their certainty despite lack of knowledge.

Re: Farmers always worked from home

#160

Post by imtringued » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

kvgr wrote: post #81

maweki wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Entitlements" is a strange word for this. The fact is, that farming dairy, cattle, and produce pays so little through the primary market that those people would starve if not for government subsidies. The people who literally prevent every other person on the continent from starving. Farming is hard and pays little.

Well if the subsidies stopped and some farmers quit, then the producers would have to pay more. And farmers would return. I don’t get this constant subsidies to farmers everywhere. We take your taxes and shove it to farmers so you can have cheap corn and get fat. Maybe if some products werent so heavily subsidiest farmers would other, better food.

You can't eat bank notes. Money can be stored, most foods spoil very quickly. This asymmetry results in inflation once your farms are gone. Just look at Zimbabwe.

So the obvious strategy is to support your farmers, help them get through the bad years and make sure there is always some slack. If you cut subsidies then the free market will trim agriculture for efficiency, meaning producing exactly enough food and not a single grain of wheat more. Any supply shocks will cause famine because there are no farmers overproducing beyond the need of what the market is willing to pay.