6 ms·

The quality of vehicles has increased dramatically over that time. There isn't a similar increase in the quality of grain. A vehicle that I purchased roughly t

The quality of vehicles has increased dramatically over that time. There isn't a similar increase in the quality of grain. A vehicle that I purchased roughly ten years ago has operated perfectly fine with half of its scheduled oil changes and very little other maintenance. From an engineering perspective I find that mind-blowing: you buy these machines and they operate flawlessly for years, running for thousands of miles, while performing a complex, mechanical task with many moving parts. It's easy to take for granted how marvelous modern automobiles have become.

falsedan 9y ago
Thanks for explaining how car quality has improved, but I still don't follow your link between automation and price decreases. I feel like your explanation doesn't address the market side of farming, and disregards the huge advances in crop & agricultural science.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Not the OP, but the point is that the car you buy today has much more value than a car that was sold 20 years ago at a similar price. So, even if the average price paid for a new car didn't go down, the price for the same car has effectively decreased, thanks to automation.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    Also, the regulatory environment has changed. The car you could buy 40 years ago couldn't be sold today because it's unsafe, too polluting, etc.
  - falsedan 9y ago
    I still don't see how this relates to farm automation: automation didn't significantly change the price point, it increased production, decreased labor costs and increased equipment/maintenance costs.
    - jerf 9y ago
      I can't help but get the sense that you want to see "factor X made Y cheaper" come out in Y getting absolutely cheaper. But it's just a single factor in a complex world. Consider the alternative; do you really think that removing the automation today would have no impact on the price? Even after the economy had a chance to adjust? Personally I find the idea incredible, in the older sense of "not credible".
      - falsedan 9y ago
        > do you really think that removing the automation today would have no impact on the price? I haven't considered that! I know it would affect production speed, which could be addressed by increasing capex to build more factories, and which could be funded by increased revenue or investment. But here's the thing: this car talk doesn't help me understand how agricultural automation caused grain prices to drop. That's my question & what I continually seek clarification on. BTW you can just ask me what I think instead of offering me some strawman claim to take under my wing. Argue in good faith! If a point of view sounds incredible to you, just go right ahead and assume I must have a more credible point of view that I haven't communicated effectively yet.
        jerf 9y ago
        "Argue in good faith!" The reason I posted is that you did not seem to be. People kept giving you reasons, and you basically discarded them with "But that's not the reason I'm looking for"... or something like that. I'm not even sure how to accurately characterize it. But you definitely seemed to be just unilaterally dismissing the people trying to help you understand and putting no effort into understanding what they were saying. Your second paragraph of this very post reads like that once again. If that is not the case, well, consider this useful feedback then.
        falsedan 9y ago
        I don't need help understanding how the analogy to car automation is wrong, I get that. I gave it as an example of how automation did not reduce prices. The 'good faith' part which the responders are failing at is badgering me to accept their explanations of car manufacturing in place of farm automation. I accept their explanations but it does not help me understand this: Why does the GP think that agricultural automation caused the decline in prices? If I again get a response talking about cars: I don't get it. I don't understand. I can't work it out. I need help to see the connection. It doesn't make sense to me. Please, help me understand instead of deriding me for not accepting an explanation about car manufacturing as an substitute.

falsedan 9y ago

Thanks for explaining how car quality has improved, but I still don't follow your link between automation and price decreases. I feel like your explanation doesn't address the market side of farming, and disregards the huge advances in crop & agricultural science.

danmaz74 9y ago
Not the OP, but the point is that the car you buy today has much more value than a car that was sold 20 years ago at a similar price. So, even if the average price paid for a new car didn't go down, the price for the same car has effectively decreased, thanks to automation.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Also, the regulatory environment has changed. The car you could buy 40 years ago couldn't be sold today because it's unsafe, too polluting, etc.
- falsedan 9y ago
  I still don't see how this relates to farm automation: automation didn't significantly change the price point, it increased production, decreased labor costs and increased equipment/maintenance costs.
  - jerf 9y ago
    I can't help but get the sense that you want to see "factor X made Y cheaper" come out in Y getting absolutely cheaper. But it's just a single factor in a complex world. Consider the alternative; do you really think that removing the automation today would have no impact on the price? Even after the economy had a chance to adjust? Personally I find the idea incredible, in the older sense of "not credible".
    - falsedan 9y ago
      > do you really think that removing the automation today would have no impact on the price? I haven't considered that! I know it would affect production speed, which could be addressed by increasing capex to build more factories, and which could be funded by increased revenue or investment. But here's the thing: this car talk doesn't help me understand how agricultural automation caused grain prices to drop. That's my question & what I continually seek clarification on. BTW you can just ask me what I think instead of offering me some strawman claim to take under my wing. Argue in good faith! If a point of view sounds incredible to you, just go right ahead and assume I must have a more credible point of view that I haven't communicated effectively yet.
      - jerf 9y ago
        "Argue in good faith!" The reason I posted is that you did not seem to be. People kept giving you reasons, and you basically discarded them with "But that's not the reason I'm looking for"... or something like that. I'm not even sure how to accurately characterize it. But you definitely seemed to be just unilaterally dismissing the people trying to help you understand and putting no effort into understanding what they were saying. Your second paragraph of this very post reads like that once again. If that is not the case, well, consider this useful feedback then.
        falsedan 9y ago
        I don't need help understanding how the analogy to car automation is wrong, I get that. I gave it as an example of how automation did not reduce prices. The 'good faith' part which the responders are failing at is badgering me to accept their explanations of car manufacturing in place of farm automation. I accept their explanations but it does not help me understand this: Why does the GP think that agricultural automation caused the decline in prices? If I again get a response talking about cars: I don't get it. I don't understand. I can't work it out. I need help to see the connection. It doesn't make sense to me. Please, help me understand instead of deriding me for not accepting an explanation about car manufacturing as an substitute.