23 ms·

The suicide rate for farmers in the U.S. is more than double that of veterans

317 points by liyanage 9y ago

rdlecler1 9y ago
Unfortunately technology is likely going to exacerbate this problem more than it helps. There will Be platforms like Farmers Buisiness Network of FarmLead, that will help smaller farms access better information and price but but that will quickly be arbitraged away and then you’re left with economies of scale.
simlevesque 9y ago
The same thing happens in Canada.
- 1001101 9y ago
  and India (as mentioned in the article) [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
  - Neracked 9y ago
    and France (as mentioned in the article) [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/world/europe/france-farm-suicide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/world/europe/france-farm-...
  - ktta 9y ago
    If anyone was wondering, the farmer death per day is 33.6 per day in India (it was mentioned as a single number since 1995).
- criddell 9y ago
  For some farms. I have relatives that are dairy farmers in Ontario and they seem to be doing ok. There's some kind of collective in place that establishes production quotas and you have to pay for the right to produce. Maybe more commodity products could benefit from this type of planning.
  - nbanks 9y ago
    This is also why milk costs 50% more in Canada than in the US. Still, a reliable supply of food reduces the risk of famine which is more important than a purely competitive market.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    It makes Canadian dairy products rather expensive. Helping businesses collude to drive up prices and increase profits really should not be the role of government. Cartels are good for their members, but not for the rest of society. See also, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/canadas-supply-management-system-for-dairy-is-no-longer-defensible/article36029788/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comme...
    - criddell 9y ago
      > Helping businesses collude to drive up prices and increase profits really should not be the role of government. Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say it stabilizes a strategically important sector and establishes a minimum wage for dairy farmers. I'd rather pay more for milk than have desperate farmers killing themselves at record rates. There's a societal cost to that as well.
mc32 9y ago
There was an article on HN not long ago [1] about professionals leaving their jobs in record numbers to pursue life as a farmer, producing and living off the land. How do we reconcile on the one hand farmers by trade leaving and wannabe farmers wanting to join a farm life? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15771168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15771168
- rarec 9y ago
  Very stark difference between choosing the trade and it being handed to you. If you choose to go into the trade, you still have a way out that a lifelong farmer doesn't. It also doesn't help that rural America is dying in general, but that's a different matter.
- jpm_sd 9y ago
  Large-scale industrial farming (hyper-competitive, boring, "work") vs. small-scale hipster farming (microgreens, heirloom vegetables, heritage breeds, "lifestyle")
  - mc32 9y ago
    The person cited in the article was not a staid farmer. He adopted no till, and other at the time, avant guard farming techniques, so i think that mischaracterizes at least him.
- TehCorwiz 9y ago
  I remember that discussion. I also remember the major criticism was that a good portion of the people who are moving from tech to farming were already independently wealthy enough to bootstrap their farm into a good place. And on top of that getting to choose where their farm is located. Contrast that with a farmer who may have inherited what he has from his parents and may not be in as good a financial state, or their land holding is too small or has too much local or regional competition to make it profitable.
  - pc86 9y ago
    Why is that a valid criticism? Doesn't that just boil down to "people who want to do x and have money can end up in a better spot than people who inherited x and have less money?"
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Local farm services guy had this to say: "Used to buy truckloads of fertilizer, then the coop would buy train car loads and undercut us. So we bought a train car - they bought a train. We bought a train - they bought a barge. The margins are disappearing entirely" Almost everybody is being squeezed out by 'economies of scale'. And its going to get worse, when we start making simple foodstuffs electrically (starch, sugar, protein). Then we'll see the entire farm industry turned upside down.
- Moru 9y ago
  The first thing I learned when I started working life in a store was: "We do not compete by undercutting the competition. That will kill us both."
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    But, corn is corn. There's no winning in a commodity market. And grain is the classic commodity.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      But is it? I don't know about corn, but the mega-crop varieties of tomato and apple are bred to maximize revenue/reduce cost (larger, more robust for shipping, more consistent shape), not taste and nutrition.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Right, there are two different markets, commodity crops and specialty crops (e.g. mega-crop tomatos vs organic local tomatoes) You can be in either market, but it is hard to switch between them. The equipment, land area used, process, etc are different.
        tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        Also there is no middle ground, it's one or the other.
gonzoflip 9y ago
I have family that farms in Iowa and I also worked in the agriculture industry there for a while after leaving the military. One thing that increases the stress on the farmers is the way they avoid income taxes at all costs so they rarely save any of the profits from good years to help them float during the bad years. This is all anecdotal but I have personally talked with several farmers that would rather buy new equipment they say do not even need than pay the taxes to take the money as income. This mindset causes them to experience a huge amount of stress every season. The farmers would talk about struggling, but have a brand new semi-tractor sitting in a barn unused 10 months out of the year.
- halestock 9y ago
  Is this for philosophical reasons about taxes and government? Or is it just a big chunk of money they're trying to save?
  - gonzoflip 9y ago
    I think both, but is it really saving money if you personally are unable to buy food after a bad season?
    - rtx 9y ago
      Governments need to subsidies farming even more. In India farmers generally don't have to pay income taxes.
    - RamenJunkie_ 9y ago
      If it's philosophical then it doesn't matter, it's just short sighted. They just see it as "The government taking my money" vs "at least I own this semi, even if it's useless it's mine"
    - ambicapter 9y ago
      What? They're unable to buy food after a bad season because of their stupid tax avoidance schemes, not in spite of it.
  - 9y ago
a2tech 9y ago
Because their way of life is over. You can't be a small farmer any more-farming unfortunately scales really well so bigger concerns run the show now. They've got nothing left-they're up to their ears in debt, their way of life is gone, so whats left to do?
dekhn 9y ago
Mild shock that the conclusion isn't "Monsanto"
- mywittyname 9y ago
  That's in the article about why farmers are killing each other. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-a-farmers-murder https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigwe...
swayvil 9y ago
Maybe they have been faced with the prospect of moving to a city and working in an office.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  These people are in their 50-60s. That's not a likely transition. A few might be able to get into sales or traveling trade work. But most of them are going to have a difficult time finding any sort of work. Agism and the stigma of being a bumpkin/luddite will absolutely work against them.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    stigma of being a bumpkin/Luddite Which is a terrible assumption to make. Many farmers (at least here in the mid-Atlantic) are college-educated absolutely not bumpkins/Luddites. Unsurprisingly, agricultural programs have a useful blend of business/economics and science.
    - roel_v 9y ago
      That's why it's called a 'stigma' - a reputation, not a fact.
      - alistairSH 9y ago
        Yes, I was agreeing with you.
    - swayvil 9y ago
      On the flipside consider the stigma of the office worker, aka scriviner. Pale, unhealthy, tortured, drained, doomed to live in a mechanistic hellhive. The farmer believes death is a better fate.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    On a side note, this is the heart of how Democrats managed to lose the last Presidential election. Telling 50 year old machinists and farmers that they should get government assistance to get a loan to learn computer programming because their job moved to Mexico is much less palatable than the guy who will call the president of the company and tell them not to close the factory.
PrimalDual 9y ago
There are few places where market forces work as well as in farming. Which is surprising considering the distortions imposed by subsidies. Still, I think this is a case where automation will eliminate many if not all of their jobs and the market is doing a good job at signaling that they probably need to change professions. This especially rang true when they mentioned how the price of a wheat bushel appeared to below production costs. It’s really pains me to see these men having to deal with the dark side of creative distruction but I also don’t know what’s the best way to help them reinvent themselves for the future.
- neolefty 9y ago
  What would a good role of government be? It sounds like subsidizing getting people off the farm would be helpful, but that's also loaded politically. One program I've heard of working well is subsidizing fallow land that eventually just becomes wild and never returns to cultivation.
  - PrimalDual 9y ago
    I was reading other commenters mentioning the relatively old age of farmers. Maybe the only good option would be something like removing/phasing out existing subsidies so that only right amount of young people choose the profession coupled with a generous retirement program. Something like social security plus but with your farmland backing the plus part. Maybe in the spirit of what you’re describing. I worry about the unforseeable consequences of paying to leave arable land fallow. You’re essentially raising food prices and that really affects poor people the most.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      Maybe there's also a concern about losing farming knowledge in local areas. This is a speculation since my general assumption is that as one of the oldest, most studied professions, we have more than enough knowledge socked away on it.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  >reinvent themselves for the future. Give people meaning
rb808 9y ago
The amazing thing is the median age of farmers in the USA is ~56. In the next ten years over half are retire-able. Who is going to take over? Corporations or the current immigrant workers? Its a huge change for most of the country.
- falcolas 9y ago
  This assumes they are able to retire. Given the financial outlooks presented in the article, I think retiring is not in the books for these farmers.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    Well then what about 10 years later when they start keeling over? At some point, the music stops.
- adventured 9y ago
  Farming will do what it has been doing for two centuries in the US: leap forward in automation. The technology is all primed to cause an extraordinary increase in productivity. Meanwhile the US population growth is trending toward zero. Odds are, the US can lose half its farmers over the next 30 years and still increase net food production to match very modest population growth.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    This isn't a new trend. In 1820 72% of Americans worked in "farm occupations". Today it's less than 2%.
agumonkey 9y ago
It's not only America. Same story in France (as just one example). More interestingly there was a documentary about the 40s in France, and a farmer interviewed said the exact same things as a farmer today about the struggle of surviving in this "field"... nothing's changed.
curtis 9y ago
One question I would ask: Has the average age of a farmer gone up substantially in the last couple of decades? This alone could be a major contributing factor, because the male suicide rate (at least in the U.S.) goes up with age.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Over what time? In the last few years the younger generation has been returning to the farm decreasing the age, but go back farther and the age as been getting older.
- zodPod 9y ago
  That's an extremely interesting suggestion!
benevol 9y ago
Same thing happens in Switzerland.
- s3nnyy 9y ago
  I would say farmers are quite happy in Switzerland being the most subsidised farmers in Europe / the world? On top, some of them own land, which makes them into multimillionaires the moment the land is turned from farm-land into land that can be used to put houses on.
  - dejv 9y ago
    Subsidising farmers is double edge sword, it do inflate the prices of everything you are supposed to buy with that money, be it tractors, land, fertilisers and such. Dealers know how much you are going to get from government and they want some of it.
    - s3nnyy 9y ago
      Sure but the Swiss are the most risk-averse people on the planet. In case again a world-war breaks out they need to be able to feed the country without relying on imports. That an important main reasons for subsidies. If somehow it could be guaranteed that there will be no war in Europe ever, my best guess is that the Swiss would immediately drop this "inefficiency" (they love to be efficient).
      - dejv 9y ago
        Sure, but my comment was about the effect of subsidiaries to profitability of given farms. What I see, as a small scale farmer myself, and as having family members having executive roles in big industrial farm conglomerates, is that those subsidies have effect on pricing of farm inputs.
happy-go-lucky 9y ago
Farming is irreplaceable as of now. I don't want it to be replaceable, do you?.
- Crespyl 9y ago
  Replaceable with what? Some lab-based process that produces the same products at the same volume with less impact on the land? Would that be such a bad thing?
baldfat 9y ago
> but the most extreme anti-government/anti-tax ideologies. It's the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That sadly isn't an extreme ideologies. Every wonder why Republicans are all for tax cuts? Its the simple idea that if the Government has less money it must be smaller. So lower the taxes of the rich and corporations = smaller government. This is why we have problems all the time with tax talks. Both sides talk with different worldviews. You might say "Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work," they simply don't care, "There is nothing that Government does well." "Government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan 1981 Inauguration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs Though I love throwing Reagan into the face of today's "Conservatives" they really would HATE Reagan today and his liberal ways.
- pc86 9y ago
  I am generally in favor of a smaller national government and my default position on a tax cut is positive until proven otherwise, yet I still understand how progressive tax structures work. I have many friends and associates who would be considered conservative even among other Republicans, and probably have inconceivably conservative viewpoints by most of HN's standards. And I don't think any of them would spend $150k just to keep $30k out of the government's hands. So yes I think if you're going to hurt yourself financially to make some token gesture toward the government that won't even show up on a budget spreadsheet because it's so small, that's either an extreme ideological viewpoint or you don't know how taxes work. "Never ascribe to malice" and all that. And individual taxes aside, corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    > corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world. Effective Rate So lets say Corporate Tax is a 20% flat tax from 35% the taxes would actually increase. Because they are actually paid at around 15% and no where close to highest in the world. We are actually on par or bellow the average tax rate across the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-corporate-tax-slash-ignores-how-litte-companies-already-pay/#239c8ff758aa https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-c... Personally I would love to see a drop of corporate federal taxes and place them more on the individuals. Tax the shareholder and those that profit from the corporations. The truth is this isn't happening and why we see the money continually going to the top and not filtering down. Corporations are incentivized to lower wages and benefits to extract more profit. As the economic disparity continues to climb and the burden is placed on the middle and lower class to support profit growth. Looking at taxes for the national safety net for the working poor, higher utilities bills, and higher medical expenses and insurance cost. None of these are of concern for the wealthy. We can't even have a conversation on what is fair for the working poor and instead we disincentive work in America. The "conservatives" today are just totally Libertarians who could careless if work is incentivized.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
I'll guess: depression, isolation, uncertainty, one paycheck a year (when the harvest comes in), physical danger and health risks.
- tresil 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm curious if isolation isn't a key here. As technological advancements have enabled farmers to manage more and more land, they are getting more and more spread out. Social isolation has psychological and real physiological impacts on wellbeing.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    and hardly any hired hands any more - they work alone
jartelt 9y ago
I imagine that farmers' high rate of gun ownership and social isolation are the big factors. It's pretty well documented that people with guns are more likely to successfully take their lives when compared to suicidal people who do not have guns. Couple that with the fact that there is not really a support system or general awareness of this issue and you have a problem. Veterans are also likely to own guns, but at least they have the VA and other organizations that are readily available to help in the event of emotional or psychological issues. Farmers do not have an equivalent organization.
- majos 9y ago
  This appears to be an issue for farmers worldwide. In India the same logic is used with "access to pesticide" substituted for "access to guns" [1]. [1] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/PF/presentations/farmers_relief.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/PF/presentations/far...
protomyth 9y ago
The Guardian article on Dec 6, 2017 quotes the stat from Newsweek which has a date of July 13, 2016 quoting a 2014 study showing the number at 15.2 per 100,000. The other cited source is a CDC Study from 2016 with data up until 2012 that shows Farmers, Foresters, and Fishermen have the highest suicide rates of any profession in the US. Strangely, the CDC study puts the number at 84.5 per 100,000[1]. I would really like to see a bit more rigor and comparison so I know what is really going on. 1) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6525a1.htm#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6525a1.htm#contribA... table 2
sdljfslkjfdsj 9y ago
I wonder how much prior boom times have an impact on farmers because prices on the crops have just languished for years now. 2008 had very aggressive price appreciation in corn & beans. Same can be said for late 2010, all 2011, all 2012, & early 2013. After that prices have absolutely fallen off a cliff & continue to hover near those lows every single day. I suspect it's difficult to be in the "risk management" business which farmers are by being "long" the crop in the ground & having no price appreciation for years. Meanwhile all other risk assets continue to explode higher. At some point it probably becomes challenging to find a light at the end of the tunnel. Now with rising interest rates the cost of capital is higher & likely going to accelerate higher. Higher operating costs (wages & debt service) & continually deperessed prices of the product you produce. I don't have a solution for any of this but by putting myself in those shoes it sure does seem horrible.
Animats 9y ago
How does this suicide rate compare to small business owners overall? It seems that owning a farm is the suicide risk. Not working on one.
gozur88 9y ago
The amount of acreage it takes to be profitable goes up every year, and as a result people get squeezed out of the business. That's going to be tough on a guy in his fifties who never wanted to be anything but a farmer.
perseusprime11 9y ago
new topic but I am noticing a new trend where rich people have started owning farm land. Not sure why but I hope it is not contributing to this problem in a weird way.
rpmcmurphy 9y ago
I don't want to offend anyone, but could a high rate of suicides on farms have anything to do with the heavy use of pesticides in these places (which operate essentially as nerve agents, so it would not be surprising if they caused higher than normal rates of depression, hoarding, etc). Not trolling, just curious.
- DanBC 9y ago
  We know that some sheep-dip chemicals have caused problems, but there's very little evidence that agro-chemicals in general are a causitive problem for mental ill health. Suicide prevention talks about access to means and methods. Internationally agro-chemicals are a problem because they're one of the most commonly used methods for death by suicide. But in the US there's easy access to guns, and so restricting access to agro-chemcials is unlikely to have much effect.
outsideoflife 9y ago
Many 'family farms' even in the dainty UK are multi-million $ businesses, run by people who know how to shear sheep and bunt hurdles and wurzels. They complain about the effect of market prices, and the worry they create, but they are taking on these risks unhedged (and farmers being unhedged makes me giggle). Similar size businesses would we hedging their FX risk through their local bank with simple FX forwards. Farmers could directly hedge corn prices (commodities futures), and indirectly hedge fertilizer and diesel prices with oil futures. They could virtually remove market risk and concentrate on the risk inherent in the business (weather, disease etc) I would offer this advice, but they are all so clever you can't tell them anything. They are a very insular bunch in general and their tie to their land is a bit more than the blood sweat and tears mentioned below, its a bit more like being the Lord of their Manor. I agree with the top post, they would happily be less profitable to save tax. It is intriguing (but not surprising to me) that many UK farmers voted to leave the EU, despite it being their main source of unearned income and the main market for their goods, and despite the National Farmers Union coming out in favor of remaining. I have noticed the young generation of farmers be openly aggressive towards foreign people (not that they actually meet any). It is kind of sad, but when they all lose their farms after Brexit they will still blame the French for it. Disclosure: worked a lot with farmers, and have some in the family
- sambe 9y ago
  I know of UK farms that hedge their crop and currency prices. There is a common theme of wanting to be both hedging and getting the upside, but I don't think they are all unhedged.
  - outsideoflife 9y ago
    >There is a common theme of wanting to be both hedging and getting the upside I see that in my professional life x10. When I suggest 'options' (so you get the option of taking the hedge or the market at the strike date) they scoff at the margin. We are back to Brexit again, they want to have their cake and eat it! I'm sure you are right that there are some farmers, especially the 'agi-businesses' that are hedging. There seem to be many more that are winging it.
arca_vorago 9y ago
My educated guess (I was a sysadmin in a major north Texas age company) is the hidden nature of the mergers, acquisitions, and interdependency the huge ag firms and bankers have fostered on what used to be family farms, and don't be fooled, true family farms are rarer and rarer these days. I don't know when it changed so much from my great grandparents days, but when I see farmers with brand new ford raptors and 500k tractors less than a few years old it seems to fly in the face of what my grandparents described as life on a farm.
PatchMonkey 9y ago
Gee, I wonder why - small to medium farmers make just enough to get subsidized into almost not backsliding into debt and oblivion. Then a bad season hits, thanks to climate change. Cant afford food, much less taxes, maybe a mortgage. Aaaaaaand now we're back to mislabelled sharecropping - or better yet, bottom-dollar buyouts from factory farms that destroy the land, the jobs, and probably your colon, dear reader. Another dust bowl, coming soon!

317 points by liyanage 9y ago

Unfortunately technology is likely going to exacerbate this problem more than it helps. There will Be platforms like Farmers Buisiness Network of FarmLead, that will help smaller farms access better information and price but but that will quickly be arbitraged away and then you’re left with economies of scale.

simlevesque 9y ago

The same thing happens in Canada.

1001101 9y ago
and India (as mentioned in the article) [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
- Neracked 9y ago
  and France (as mentioned in the article) [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/world/europe/france-farm-suicide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/world/europe/france-farm-...
- ktta 9y ago
  If anyone was wondering, the farmer death per day is 33.6 per day in India (it was mentioned as a single number since 1995).
criddell 9y ago
For some farms. I have relatives that are dairy farmers in Ontario and they seem to be doing ok. There's some kind of collective in place that establishes production quotas and you have to pay for the right to produce. Maybe more commodity products could benefit from this type of planning.
- nbanks 9y ago
  This is also why milk costs 50% more in Canada than in the US. Still, a reliable supply of food reduces the risk of famine which is more important than a purely competitive market.
- slavik81 9y ago
  It makes Canadian dairy products rather expensive. Helping businesses collude to drive up prices and increase profits really should not be the role of government. Cartels are good for their members, but not for the rest of society. See also, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/canadas-supply-management-system-for-dairy-is-no-longer-defensible/article36029788/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-comme...
  - criddell 9y ago
    > Helping businesses collude to drive up prices and increase profits really should not be the role of government. Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say it stabilizes a strategically important sector and establishes a minimum wage for dairy farmers. I'd rather pay more for milk than have desperate farmers killing themselves at record rates. There's a societal cost to that as well.

mc32 9y ago

There was an article on HN not long ago [1] about professionals leaving their jobs in record numbers to pursue life as a farmer, producing and living off the land. How do we reconcile on the one hand farmers by trade leaving and wannabe farmers wanting to join a farm life? [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15771168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15771168

rarec 9y ago
Very stark difference between choosing the trade and it being handed to you. If you choose to go into the trade, you still have a way out that a lifelong farmer doesn't. It also doesn't help that rural America is dying in general, but that's a different matter.
jpm_sd 9y ago
Large-scale industrial farming (hyper-competitive, boring, "work") vs. small-scale hipster farming (microgreens, heirloom vegetables, heritage breeds, "lifestyle")
- mc32 9y ago
  The person cited in the article was not a staid farmer. He adopted no till, and other at the time, avant guard farming techniques, so i think that mischaracterizes at least him.
TehCorwiz 9y ago
I remember that discussion. I also remember the major criticism was that a good portion of the people who are moving from tech to farming were already independently wealthy enough to bootstrap their farm into a good place. And on top of that getting to choose where their farm is located. Contrast that with a farmer who may have inherited what he has from his parents and may not be in as good a financial state, or their land holding is too small or has too much local or regional competition to make it profitable.
- pc86 9y ago
  Why is that a valid criticism? Doesn't that just boil down to "people who want to do x and have money can end up in a better spot than people who inherited x and have less money?"

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

Local farm services guy had this to say: "Used to buy truckloads of fertilizer, then the coop would buy train car loads and undercut us. So we bought a train car - they bought a train. We bought a train - they bought a barge. The margins are disappearing entirely" Almost everybody is being squeezed out by 'economies of scale'. And its going to get worse, when we start making simple foodstuffs electrically (starch, sugar, protein). Then we'll see the entire farm industry turned upside down.

Moru 9y ago
The first thing I learned when I started working life in a store was: "We do not compete by undercutting the competition. That will kill us both."
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  But, corn is corn. There's no winning in a commodity market. And grain is the classic commodity.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    But is it? I don't know about corn, but the mega-crop varieties of tomato and apple are bred to maximize revenue/reduce cost (larger, more robust for shipping, more consistent shape), not taste and nutrition.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Right, there are two different markets, commodity crops and specialty crops (e.g. mega-crop tomatos vs organic local tomatoes) You can be in either market, but it is hard to switch between them. The equipment, land area used, process, etc are different.
      - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
        Also there is no middle ground, it's one or the other.

gonzoflip 9y ago

I have family that farms in Iowa and I also worked in the agriculture industry there for a while after leaving the military. One thing that increases the stress on the farmers is the way they avoid income taxes at all costs so they rarely save any of the profits from good years to help them float during the bad years. This is all anecdotal but I have personally talked with several farmers that would rather buy new equipment they say do not even need than pay the taxes to take the money as income. This mindset causes them to experience a huge amount of stress every season. The farmers would talk about struggling, but have a brand new semi-tractor sitting in a barn unused 10 months out of the year.

halestock 9y ago
Is this for philosophical reasons about taxes and government? Or is it just a big chunk of money they're trying to save?
- gonzoflip 9y ago
  I think both, but is it really saving money if you personally are unable to buy food after a bad season?
  - rtx 9y ago
    Governments need to subsidies farming even more. In India farmers generally don't have to pay income taxes.
  - RamenJunkie_ 9y ago
    If it's philosophical then it doesn't matter, it's just short sighted. They just see it as "The government taking my money" vs "at least I own this semi, even if it's useless it's mine"
  - ambicapter 9y ago
    What? They're unable to buy food after a bad season because of their stupid tax avoidance schemes, not in spite of it.
- 9y ago

a2tech 9y ago

Because their way of life is over. You can't be a small farmer any more-farming unfortunately scales really well so bigger concerns run the show now. They've got nothing left-they're up to their ears in debt, their way of life is gone, so whats left to do?

dekhn 9y ago

Mild shock that the conclusion isn't "Monsanto"

mywittyname 9y ago
That's in the article about why farmers are killing each other. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigweed-and-a-farmers-murder https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532879755/a-pesticide-a-pigwe...

swayvil 9y ago

Maybe they have been faced with the prospect of moving to a city and working in an office.

mywittyname 9y ago
These people are in their 50-60s. That's not a likely transition. A few might be able to get into sales or traveling trade work. But most of them are going to have a difficult time finding any sort of work. Agism and the stigma of being a bumpkin/luddite will absolutely work against them.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  stigma of being a bumpkin/Luddite Which is a terrible assumption to make. Many farmers (at least here in the mid-Atlantic) are college-educated absolutely not bumpkins/Luddites. Unsurprisingly, agricultural programs have a useful blend of business/economics and science.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    That's why it's called a 'stigma' - a reputation, not a fact.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      Yes, I was agreeing with you.
  - swayvil 9y ago
    On the flipside consider the stigma of the office worker, aka scriviner. Pale, unhealthy, tortured, drained, doomed to live in a mechanistic hellhive. The farmer believes death is a better fate.
- jandrese 9y ago
  On a side note, this is the heart of how Democrats managed to lose the last Presidential election. Telling 50 year old machinists and farmers that they should get government assistance to get a loan to learn computer programming because their job moved to Mexico is much less palatable than the guy who will call the president of the company and tell them not to close the factory.

PrimalDual 9y ago

There are few places where market forces work as well as in farming. Which is surprising considering the distortions imposed by subsidies. Still, I think this is a case where automation will eliminate many if not all of their jobs and the market is doing a good job at signaling that they probably need to change professions. This especially rang true when they mentioned how the price of a wheat bushel appeared to below production costs. It’s really pains me to see these men having to deal with the dark side of creative distruction but I also don’t know what’s the best way to help them reinvent themselves for the future.

neolefty 9y ago
What would a good role of government be? It sounds like subsidizing getting people off the farm would be helpful, but that's also loaded politically. One program I've heard of working well is subsidizing fallow land that eventually just becomes wild and never returns to cultivation.
- PrimalDual 9y ago
  I was reading other commenters mentioning the relatively old age of farmers. Maybe the only good option would be something like removing/phasing out existing subsidies so that only right amount of young people choose the profession coupled with a generous retirement program. Something like social security plus but with your farmland backing the plus part. Maybe in the spirit of what you’re describing. I worry about the unforseeable consequences of paying to leave arable land fallow. You’re essentially raising food prices and that really affects poor people the most.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    Maybe there's also a concern about losing farming knowledge in local areas. This is a speculation since my general assumption is that as one of the oldest, most studied professions, we have more than enough knowledge socked away on it.
JBlue42 9y ago
>reinvent themselves for the future. Give people meaning

rb808 9y ago

The amazing thing is the median age of farmers in the USA is ~56. In the next ten years over half are retire-able. Who is going to take over? Corporations or the current immigrant workers? Its a huge change for most of the country.

falcolas 9y ago
This assumes they are able to retire. Given the financial outlooks presented in the article, I think retiring is not in the books for these farmers.
- roel_v 9y ago
  Well then what about 10 years later when they start keeling over? At some point, the music stops.
adventured 9y ago
Farming will do what it has been doing for two centuries in the US: leap forward in automation. The technology is all primed to cause an extraordinary increase in productivity. Meanwhile the US population growth is trending toward zero. Odds are, the US can lose half its farmers over the next 30 years and still increase net food production to match very modest population growth.
- gozur88 9y ago
  This isn't a new trend. In 1820 72% of Americans worked in "farm occupations". Today it's less than 2%.

agumonkey 9y ago

It's not only America. Same story in France (as just one example). More interestingly there was a documentary about the 40s in France, and a farmer interviewed said the exact same things as a farmer today about the struggle of surviving in this "field"... nothing's changed.

curtis 9y ago

One question I would ask: Has the average age of a farmer gone up substantially in the last couple of decades? This alone could be a major contributing factor, because the male suicide rate (at least in the U.S.) goes up with age.

bluGill 9y ago
Over what time? In the last few years the younger generation has been returning to the farm decreasing the age, but go back farther and the age as been getting older.
zodPod 9y ago
That's an extremely interesting suggestion!

benevol 9y ago

Same thing happens in Switzerland.

s3nnyy 9y ago
I would say farmers are quite happy in Switzerland being the most subsidised farmers in Europe / the world? On top, some of them own land, which makes them into multimillionaires the moment the land is turned from farm-land into land that can be used to put houses on.
- dejv 9y ago
  Subsidising farmers is double edge sword, it do inflate the prices of everything you are supposed to buy with that money, be it tractors, land, fertilisers and such. Dealers know how much you are going to get from government and they want some of it.
  - s3nnyy 9y ago
    Sure but the Swiss are the most risk-averse people on the planet. In case again a world-war breaks out they need to be able to feed the country without relying on imports. That an important main reasons for subsidies. If somehow it could be guaranteed that there will be no war in Europe ever, my best guess is that the Swiss would immediately drop this "inefficiency" (they love to be efficient).
    - dejv 9y ago
      Sure, but my comment was about the effect of subsidiaries to profitability of given farms. What I see, as a small scale farmer myself, and as having family members having executive roles in big industrial farm conglomerates, is that those subsidies have effect on pricing of farm inputs.

happy-go-lucky 9y ago

Farming is irreplaceable as of now. I don't want it to be replaceable, do you?.

Crespyl 9y ago
Replaceable with what? Some lab-based process that produces the same products at the same volume with less impact on the land? Would that be such a bad thing?

baldfat 9y ago

> but the most extreme anti-government/anti-tax ideologies. It's the very definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That sadly isn't an extreme ideologies. Every wonder why Republicans are all for tax cuts? Its the simple idea that if the Government has less money it must be smaller. So lower the taxes of the rich and corporations = smaller government. This is why we have problems all the time with tax talks. Both sides talk with different worldviews. You might say "Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work," they simply don't care, "There is nothing that Government does well." "Government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan 1981 Inauguration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1sGN6J9Tgs Though I love throwing Reagan into the face of today's "Conservatives" they really would HATE Reagan today and his liberal ways.

pc86 9y ago
I am generally in favor of a smaller national government and my default position on a tax cut is positive until proven otherwise, yet I still understand how progressive tax structures work. I have many friends and associates who would be considered conservative even among other Republicans, and probably have inconceivably conservative viewpoints by most of HN's standards. And I don't think any of them would spend $150k just to keep $30k out of the government's hands. So yes I think if you're going to hurt yourself financially to make some token gesture toward the government that won't even show up on a budget spreadsheet because it's so small, that's either an extreme ideological viewpoint or you don't know how taxes work. "Never ascribe to malice" and all that. And individual taxes aside, corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world.
- baldfat 9y ago
  > corporate taxes should absolutely be lower, they're among the highest in the world. Effective Rate So lets say Corporate Tax is a 20% flat tax from 35% the taxes would actually increase. Because they are actually paid at around 15% and no where close to highest in the world. We are actually on par or bellow the average tax rate across the world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-corporate-tax-slash-ignores-how-litte-companies-already-pay/#239c8ff758aa https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/04/24/trumps-c... Personally I would love to see a drop of corporate federal taxes and place them more on the individuals. Tax the shareholder and those that profit from the corporations. The truth is this isn't happening and why we see the money continually going to the top and not filtering down. Corporations are incentivized to lower wages and benefits to extract more profit. As the economic disparity continues to climb and the burden is placed on the middle and lower class to support profit growth. Looking at taxes for the national safety net for the working poor, higher utilities bills, and higher medical expenses and insurance cost. None of these are of concern for the wealthy. We can't even have a conversation on what is fair for the working poor and instead we disincentive work in America. The "conservatives" today are just totally Libertarians who could careless if work is incentivized.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

I'll guess: depression, isolation, uncertainty, one paycheck a year (when the harvest comes in), physical danger and health risks.

tresil 9y ago
Yeah, I'm curious if isolation isn't a key here. As technological advancements have enabled farmers to manage more and more land, they are getting more and more spread out. Social isolation has psychological and real physiological impacts on wellbeing.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  and hardly any hired hands any more - they work alone

jartelt 9y ago

I imagine that farmers' high rate of gun ownership and social isolation are the big factors. It's pretty well documented that people with guns are more likely to successfully take their lives when compared to suicidal people who do not have guns. Couple that with the fact that there is not really a support system or general awareness of this issue and you have a problem. Veterans are also likely to own guns, but at least they have the VA and other organizations that are readily available to help in the event of emotional or psychological issues. Farmers do not have an equivalent organization.

majos 9y ago
This appears to be an issue for farmers worldwide. In India the same logic is used with "access to pesticide" substituted for "access to guns" [1]. [1] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/PF/presentations/farmers_relief.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/PF/presentations/far...

protomyth 9y ago

The Guardian article on Dec 6, 2017 quotes the stat from Newsweek which has a date of July 13, 2016 quoting a 2014 study showing the number at 15.2 per 100,000. The other cited source is a CDC Study from 2016 with data up until 2012 that shows Farmers, Foresters, and Fishermen have the highest suicide rates of any profession in the US. Strangely, the CDC study puts the number at 84.5 per 100,000[1]. I would really like to see a bit more rigor and comparison so I know what is really going on. 1) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6525a1.htm#contribAff https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6525a1.htm#contribA... table 2

sdljfslkjfdsj 9y ago

I wonder how much prior boom times have an impact on farmers because prices on the crops have just languished for years now. 2008 had very aggressive price appreciation in corn & beans. Same can be said for late 2010, all 2011, all 2012, & early 2013. After that prices have absolutely fallen off a cliff & continue to hover near those lows every single day. I suspect it's difficult to be in the "risk management" business which farmers are by being "long" the crop in the ground & having no price appreciation for years. Meanwhile all other risk assets continue to explode higher. At some point it probably becomes challenging to find a light at the end of the tunnel. Now with rising interest rates the cost of capital is higher & likely going to accelerate higher. Higher operating costs (wages & debt service) & continually deperessed prices of the product you produce. I don't have a solution for any of this but by putting myself in those shoes it sure does seem horrible.

Animats 9y ago

How does this suicide rate compare to small business owners overall? It seems that owning a farm is the suicide risk. Not working on one.

gozur88 9y ago

The amount of acreage it takes to be profitable goes up every year, and as a result people get squeezed out of the business. That's going to be tough on a guy in his fifties who never wanted to be anything but a farmer.

perseusprime11 9y ago

new topic but I am noticing a new trend where rich people have started owning farm land. Not sure why but I hope it is not contributing to this problem in a weird way.

rpmcmurphy 9y ago

I don't want to offend anyone, but could a high rate of suicides on farms have anything to do with the heavy use of pesticides in these places (which operate essentially as nerve agents, so it would not be surprising if they caused higher than normal rates of depression, hoarding, etc). Not trolling, just curious.

DanBC 9y ago
We know that some sheep-dip chemicals have caused problems, but there's very little evidence that agro-chemicals in general are a causitive problem for mental ill health. Suicide prevention talks about access to means and methods. Internationally agro-chemicals are a problem because they're one of the most commonly used methods for death by suicide. But in the US there's easy access to guns, and so restricting access to agro-chemcials is unlikely to have much effect.

outsideoflife 9y ago

Many 'family farms' even in the dainty UK are multi-million $ businesses, run by people who know how to shear sheep and bunt hurdles and wurzels. They complain about the effect of market prices, and the worry they create, but they are taking on these risks unhedged (and farmers being unhedged makes me giggle). Similar size businesses would we hedging their FX risk through their local bank with simple FX forwards. Farmers could directly hedge corn prices (commodities futures), and indirectly hedge fertilizer and diesel prices with oil futures. They could virtually remove market risk and concentrate on the risk inherent in the business (weather, disease etc) I would offer this advice, but they are all so clever you can't tell them anything. They are a very insular bunch in general and their tie to their land is a bit more than the blood sweat and tears mentioned below, its a bit more like being the Lord of their Manor. I agree with the top post, they would happily be less profitable to save tax. It is intriguing (but not surprising to me) that many UK farmers voted to leave the EU, despite it being their main source of unearned income and the main market for their goods, and despite the National Farmers Union coming out in favor of remaining. I have noticed the young generation of farmers be openly aggressive towards foreign people (not that they actually meet any). It is kind of sad, but when they all lose their farms after Brexit they will still blame the French for it. Disclosure: worked a lot with farmers, and have some in the family

sambe 9y ago
I know of UK farms that hedge their crop and currency prices. There is a common theme of wanting to be both hedging and getting the upside, but I don't think they are all unhedged.
- outsideoflife 9y ago
  >There is a common theme of wanting to be both hedging and getting the upside I see that in my professional life x10. When I suggest 'options' (so you get the option of taking the hedge or the market at the strike date) they scoff at the margin. We are back to Brexit again, they want to have their cake and eat it! I'm sure you are right that there are some farmers, especially the 'agi-businesses' that are hedging. There seem to be many more that are winging it.

arca_vorago 9y ago

My educated guess (I was a sysadmin in a major north Texas age company) is the hidden nature of the mergers, acquisitions, and interdependency the huge ag firms and bankers have fostered on what used to be family farms, and don't be fooled, true family farms are rarer and rarer these days. I don't know when it changed so much from my great grandparents days, but when I see farmers with brand new ford raptors and 500k tractors less than a few years old it seems to fly in the face of what my grandparents described as life on a farm.

PatchMonkey 9y ago

Gee, I wonder why - small to medium farmers make just enough to get subsidized into almost not backsliding into debt and oblivion. Then a bad season hits, thanks to climate change. Cant afford food, much less taxes, maybe a mortgage. Aaaaaaand now we're back to mislabelled sharecropping - or better yet, bottom-dollar buyouts from factory farms that destroy the land, the jobs, and probably your colon, dear reader. Another dust bowl, coming soon!