Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers • Hacker News Board

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#151

Post by baseballdork » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

quantummagic wrote: post #61

TulliusCicero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's working exactly as intended.

I think the founders would be pretty surprised to see the vast majority of electoral votes being determined all-or-nothing by the popular vote of the citizens of the state. If that was how they intended it to work, you might think they would've set it up that way in the first place.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#152

Post by mewse-hn » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

os2warpman wrote: post #39

farceSpherule wrote: post #17

How about the US government stop subsidizing farmers? Let them fend for themselves like any other business.

Food isn't a ECON101 factory widget. Farm subsidies are both the single most important national security policy a nation can have, and an incredibly inexpensive yet extremely effective insurance policy.

The Omnivore's Dilemma points out that the food economy doesn't even behave like the normal economy - supply is variable due to weather (bumper crop vs famine year) but demand is inelastic, people generally eat the same amount year-to-year. How do you grow your food business if people only eat so much? One method is to increase portion sizes.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#153

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:23 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #131

dismalaf wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land can be financed over long periods and held forever. So a few hundred grand will pay off $5 million in about 20 years and then that's steady income forever after (as long as you keep farming).

Land can’t be financed, businesses can be financed. Businesses that own land are much more easily financed, with the lowest interest rates. When you buy land to develop, you have to pony up cash for it. I have never heard of a lender lending without a cash flow producing asset as collateral.

This is factually inaccurate. The land is the collateral. If you don’t service the debt, they take back the land. 75-85% loan to value, 2-4% interest over treasury rates. Underwriting guidelines for the loan will differ if this is for speculation, development into housing, or agriculture.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#154

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:23 PM UTC

gopher_space wrote: post #141

bombcar wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's opportunities for the right person out there, I've seen it a few times - young man (or woman) who wants to run a farm or rural business or whatnot, either marries into the family or becomes "basically adopted" and inherits the business or farm. You have tons of businesses that are viable (produce enough money to support a family) as long as you never load it with debt; because they do NOT produce enough to su…

> You have tons of businesses that are viable (produce enough money to support a family) as long as you never load it with debt; because they do NOT produce enough to support a family and the debt load that would come from buying it. I've been thinking about this situation as "the bakery trap". The labor dimension here is that the best possible career move for the person you've spent the past n years training is to i…

[deleted]

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#155

Post by insane_dreamer » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:24 PM UTC

> In the same 20-year window, farmland owned by businesses with out-of-state mailing addresses increased by nearly 250%.

they should have noted _what percentage_ of farmland is owned by out-of-state businesses; otherwise the 250% increase isn't meaningful

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#156

Post by insane_dreamer » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

arbor_day wrote: post #62

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…

Yeah, I think it would have been more useful if the Tribune had been able to determine "how many people are farming on land which they do not own" whether directly or through an LLC/company.

The amount of land owned by "out of state" owners may help answer this question but they don't give a number for that either. (A local farmer could also register their LLC out of state though I'm not sure whether that's beneficial or not.)

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#157

Post by CGMthrowaway » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

quickthrowman wrote: post #150

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-econo…

How much of the argicultural output do the 60% of owner-operated farms produce? I’d bet it’s less than 60%

Probably 40-65%. What is your point?

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#158

Post by jrockway » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

jackcosgrove wrote: post #37

The headline is provocative, as some amount of corporate-owned farmland is owned by corporations that are in turn owned by farmers and their families. I would also push back on the notion that owner-operators are in a better position. It's more accurate to say that farmers who have assets of any kind are better off than those who don't have assets. As an example, generations back in my family we owned a lot of farmla…

Yeah. I think it's important to think about whether or not you want millions of dollars of assets tied up in land that you can farm. For example, I don't know how to farm, and I don't wish my 401(k) was land and structures... I am happy to have higher exposure to the wider economy.

Obviously there are recessions and having your own vegetable farm and place to live is nice... but most of the time there isn't a cataclysmic recession, so you're leaving money on the table. Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to have a bad year farming. Weather. Pests. Having a lot of assets doesn't help you when they're not liquid and plants won't grow for a year.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#159

Post by Loughla » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:33 PM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #124

arbor_day wrote: post #62

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…

> all without the ick that comes with running other businesses can you elaborate on this perception?

As a farmer my customer is the grain elevator, co-op, or sale barn. I don't have to hustle for sales, just play the market.

At least when I still farmed that's what it was. I answered to myself, not to customers or clients.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#160

Post by CGMthrowaway » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 9:33 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #115

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but even going by that the first definition would mean any plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the threshold potentially lower than 50%. I prefer Merriam Webster, which is far more clear. Definition 2 (defn 1 does not apply in this context): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

We have multiple parties in Canada. There may be a minority government elected, with 40% of the seats, and 30%, 20%, 10% to other parties. The 40% party will be described as winning the most seats.

Yes, that is definition 1 (merriam-webster). This definition is often invoked by saying "the" before "most," as you did.

It's a different definition than defn 2 (m-w), which is what is used when saying "Most farms are not owned by farmers."

"The 40% party won the most seats" carries a different meaning than "The 40% party won most seats"