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

91–100 of 284 posts

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#91

Post by leptons »

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…

Too bad there aren't books that describe the meaning of words, so this website will have to do...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/most

No, "most" does not mean "80%" or any other made up number.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#92

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#93

Post by harmmonica »

leptons wrote: post #91
harmmonica wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Too bad there aren't books that describe the meaning of words, so this website will have to do... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/most No, "most" does not mean "80%" or any other made up number.

Not the friendliest way to reply, but are you saying 65% does not mean most? Just wondering if we're violently agreeing. I shouldn't have said 80%. Was just trying to articulate that most is a high threshold and also not defined as an absolute number.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#94

Post by harmmonica »

quesera wrote: post #90
harmmonica wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

This is interesting. So you're saying that majority and most have the same meaning?

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#95

Post by jckahn »

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.)

I imagine there's some satisfaction in feeding people that money can't buy.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#96

Post by Alive-in-2025 »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #10
edwardbernays wrote: post #3

Forget China. The greatest threat to American freedom and global power is robber baron billionaires. We live in a full-on kleptocracy. It's about time we add some new amendments to the constitution to relevel the balance of powers.

[flagged]

We have a lot of problems in the US but electing our own shyster based on lies to get a democratic president isn't going to fix the problem.

We'll need a truth and reconciliation group after or if Trump gets out of power. We need significant reforms, like getting rid of the electoral college and making supreme court justices have term limits but also not be able to take bribes. Also the president should not have immunity - the unitary executive theory is incredibly dangerous and destructive.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#97

Post by jancsika »

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…

> On the other hand, if they were flying in a small airplane owned by one of them, it's illegal to split the costs of wear on the airplane, unless its a rental or air taxi.

This isn't true:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

That AC and the regulations cited in it couldn't be clearer-- if you and the pilot are both going to $destination for $reasons, you and the pilot can definitely split the cost of the fuel.

Moreover, this is perfectly analogous to the carpooling example as you stated it-- two people both having a stated purpose traveling to a destination, both sharing the cost of gas/wear.

There of course could be ways to carpool where the passengers pay the total cost of the driver's gas/wear/etc. You can't do that in your airplane. But again, I think the reasons for this are glaringly obvious-- keep silicon valley from attempting to create an unregulated taxi service in the sky. (In fact, IIRC there was someone who tried over a decade ago-- perhaps these laws are a response to that?)

> Because of this, and other similar effects of FAA regulations, many small airplane owners own a company that owns the airplane, instead of owning it outright, and rent the airplane from themselves, whenever they use it.

I mean, the pilots I know who do that are either a) multiple people owning a single plane, or b) single owner literally running a rental taxi service. Who isn't covered by those two categories?

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#98

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#99

Post by ASalazarMX »

mbreese wrote: post #81
spyspy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This is a use case where I think a current LLM shines. Ask it to summarize the important points of n papers, and slow read only the ones that pique your interest. It won't be perfect, but it will save you a ton of time while letting you focus on the things that need more attention.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#100

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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 housing is not owned by tenants? That surprises me quite a bit. Would you supply a source for that?
Post reply on HN