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

81–90 of 284 posts

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#81

Post by mbreese »

spyspy wrote: post #79
mbreese wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's buried in a figure legend, but the Tribune does acknowledge this too: > Note: The 12 selected counties had some of the highest cash rents in the state. For the purposes of this analysis, a business entity was defined as an organization with an LLC, Inc, LTD, Co, Corp, LP or LLP tag. This land is not necessarily owned by large conglomerates and investment firms. Corporate structures are also attractive vehicles f…

It's not buried anywhere, it's literally the next paragraph after the lede. > These acres are not necessarily owned by large conglomerates and investment firms. Corporate structures are also attractive vehicles for family businesses because they offer tax benefits and externalize losses.

So it is... Chalk that up to my science reading skills -- I skimmed the text and skipped quickly to the charts, figures, and legends...

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#82

Post by libraryofbabel »

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…

> 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.

Non-judgmental curious question: why do you keep doing it? (As opposed to selling the land and buying tbills.)

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#83

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#84

Post by Alive-in-2025 »

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.

The electoral college was invented in part to increase the ability slave states at the founding of the country keep a certain amount of control - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slav....

It set up the critical vulnerability that we have today, that in states where the votes are close at the state level, switching just a handful of votes completely moves the votes in the electoral college. This will be a continuing temptation, and a weakness of the us system. The 200 or 300k votes in swing states that had Biden beating Trump and then Trump beating Harris this time is not a great thing in democracy.

So this vulnerability makes it a potential attraction to steal votes. There was the notorious recorded phone call when Trump called up the Secretary of State in Georgia and said he only needed 11,700 votes, please give them to him.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#85

Post by petcat »

pfdietz wrote: post #70
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."

New York state has gone to great lengths over the last 40 years to highly incentivize (read: subsidize) local, family farmers and deter megacorp speculators and investors.

At this point I think it's basically impossible to actually lose money on a farm as long as it's family/individual owner-operator.

It's also why NY state cropland is among the most expensive in the country. Once you get it, the value will only ever go up regardless of crop yield in any given year.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#86

Post by harmmonica »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #68
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-econo…

Not trying to nitpick, but I guess I am. Does "most" really mean 65%? I tend to think most needs to clear a pretty high hurdle. I bring this up not to attack you, but I've noticed this behavior in journalism or when folks are trying to win arguments where instead of quoting the actual number they'll use a term like most, which I don't think has a hard and fast threshold.

I guess, for me, most would have to be something north of 80% because it just doesn't feel right to use it below that. 65% would be majority, obviously, maybe significant majority or some such.

Anyone else feel this way?

Edit: if anyone else reads this, I totally shouldn't have even brought this up. Downvote away, but as other replies have pointed out I missed the definition of "most" when you're comparing numbers against each other.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#87

Post by Ericson2314 »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #80
Ericson2314 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good points. Need more legal immigration, and paying Brazil, etc. not to farm there. Better to do that than subsidize farmers.

Why is that better?

What are we trying to accomplish? I think:

- Use arable land where it exists, not just where the cheapest labor is

- Don't do deforestation or other such things

I would like policies that directly address this:

- Legal immigration fairly moves the people the arible land, rather than moving the farming to the cheap people. The goal would be in 200 years there is enough economic development and immigration that there is no longer global scale labor arbitrage.

- Paying to protect the land we directly care about directly protects that land, and removes the incentive to farm there after all. (If you farm there, you loose the preservation rent.)

Farmers in brazil are notoriously far-right-wing, just like else where, and so paying the gov to not farm has other return-to-center-and-sanity benefits too.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#88

Post by appreciatorBus »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #82
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…

> 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. Non-judgmental curious question: why do you keep doing it? (As opposed to selling the land and buying tbills.)

> the ick that comes with running other businesses

Also non-judgmental curious question: what is this "ick" related to non-farming businesses?

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#89

Post by jghn »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #67
jghn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the population scale in the US "The farmers" as in the stereotype of the rugged, individual American by and large does not. That's part of the point of this article.

BigAg farms? You're absolutely right.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#90

Post by quesera »

harmmonica wrote: post #86
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…

Not trying to nitpick, but I guess I am. Does "most" really mean 65%? I tend to think most needs to clear a pretty high hurdle. I bring this up not to attack you, but I've noticed this behavior in journalism or when folks are trying to win arguments where instead of quoting the actual number they'll use a term like most, which I don't think has a hard and fast threshold. I guess, for me, most would have to be somethi…

I do not. For me, "most" is 50% + 1 (Edit: or more).
Post reply on HN