4 ms·

> include rural prosperity The United States has just shy of one billion acres of farmland. In 2014 The United States had an agriculture export surplus of almo

by lev99 9y ago

> include rural prosperity The United States has just shy of one billion acres of farmland. In 2014 The United States had an agriculture export surplus of almost 40 billion dollars. The current Farm Bill, and the historical trend, pushes the market towards consolidation and mono-crops. In 2014 we produced 54 billion dollars of corn, and our 10th biggest crop (barley) was 0.9 billion dollars. The median farm income in 2014 was $-118. If you want to increase the wealth of rural America I suggest looking for ways to make small to mid sized farming profitable. We are literally covered in farmable land, and rural areas will be better at it then urban areas for a long time.

Animats 9y ago
Why? Small to mid-sized farming is inherently less efficient than large scale farming. Yes, there's a market in designer kale, but it's tiny. Farm efficiency is a great achievement. In 1820, about 77% of US workers were in "farm occupations". Today, 1.5%. Now that's productivity.
- User23 9y ago
  Efficiency is a lousy primary metric to run a society by.
- rosser 9y ago
  Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-ing those jobs out of existence might not be the wisest move, all in — especially if, to The Fine Article's point, we do so in a manner that adversely affects some regions disproportionately. (Yes, there are always alternative jobs. They may not be palatable, or the society in question may not offer meaningful forms of skills transitioning. Or people might be stuck where they are for reasons beyond their control. "But efficiency!" isn't very comforting to someone who's out of work and starving.) EDIT: phrasing.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?
    - rosser 9y ago
      You're right; I spoke hyperbolically, to fend off pointless counter-arguments of the "the invention of cars put buggy-whip manufacturers out of business, but look how many jobs that created!" sort. In the short-to-medium term, there aren't enough jobs to go around. Automation is only making that worse, and we haven't yet come up with a meaningful alternative for the folks who are being displaced. As for the long term, my crystal ball doesn't work too well, that far out. Maybe we will come up with something for them, but the alternatives I've seen tossed around suggest everyone will end up trying to market someone else's products, or services jobs. It doesn't strike me as readily apparent there will be enough of those jobs to go around, either. So, it's perhaps more accurate to say "there are always alternative jobs, but probably not for everyone", which really just reinforces the point that efficiency-ing away this thing we've predicated the functioning of our society upon doesn't ultimately serve us very well.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  Sane definitions of "efficiency" don't mean that the people producing food have an average income in the negative numbers, nor that they're forced to use crop choices and fertilization methods that kill the land over time. That's not efficient, just exploitative and brittle.
- bsder 9y ago
  Maximally efficient is minimally robust. Perhaps we should prioritize food supply reliability over maximal efficiency. If shipping around the world suddenly stopped (perhaps due to war), our food supply would become very unhealthy with very little choice until we had a growing season or two to rediversify.
taurath 9y ago
I think that ship really has sailed, as there is no longer the expertise and it would be a considerable downgrade in supply to switch back to smaller farms (though I support lessening the burden). The idea of call centers and "remote" workplaces come to mind frequently - in theory anywhere with an internet connection should be able to find people cheap to do any digital work that needs doing. We need to find a way to not concentrate all the wealth in cities.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  Re "We need to find a way to not concentrate all the wealth in cities." You have the crux of the matter right, but the goal might be unattainable in practice. Urbanization is currently a strong force in all economies. In the developing world, it mostly isn't a bad thing because it improves conditions for migrants from rural areas. It's an open question whether it's a bad thing in developed economies, especially if it reduces the kind of residual racism and intolerance that brews in the countryside. It's not just economic poverty that is reduced by urbanization. In other words, the calls for understanding "flyover country" and healing the rural economy can prove to be futile. If they are futile or unrealistic, what then?
  - taurath 9y ago
    It certainly could be, but the jury is still out - plenty of things could come in and change the calculus. I’m not of the opinion that it’s a foregone conclusion, but I also don’t have a whole lot of ideas as to how to make that part of the country support the people living in it.
- lev99 9y ago
  Call centers and remote offices under perform their Head Quarters counterpart. The best building to work (for your career) is almost always the one where the C-suite has their offices.
  - taurath 9y ago
    Of course they do, but do they underperform to the point that the cost difference means nothing? I’d argue there’s plenty of room for lower efficiency but at vastly lower cost. If you have an office of 1000 employees making $60k vs $100k you’re saving at least 25% (after benefits/healthcare), let alone real estate. You could operate offices at 75% productivity and still come ahead, no? I ask out of actual curiosity.

by lev99 9y ago

Animats 9y ago

Why? Small to mid-sized farming is inherently less efficient than large scale farming. Yes, there's a market in designer kale, but it's tiny. Farm efficiency is a great achievement. In 1820, about 77% of US workers were in "farm occupations". Today, 1.5%. Now that's productivity.

User23 9y ago
Efficiency is a lousy primary metric to run a society by.
rosser 9y ago
Efficiency isn't an absolute good. It can, in cases, be an unambiguous bad. If, for example, we're going to premise a society on "having jobs" then efficiency-ing those jobs out of existence might not be the wisest move, all in — especially if, to The Fine Article's point, we do so in a manner that adversely affects some regions disproportionately. (Yes, there are always alternative jobs. They may not be palatable, or the society in question may not offer meaningful forms of skills transitioning. Or people might be stuck where they are for reasons beyond their control. "But efficiency!" isn't very comforting to someone who's out of work and starving.) EDIT: phrasing.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Yes, there are always alternative jobs. We have no proof of this, and the "gig economy" suggests quite strongly to the contrary. Given that the "gig economy" generally represents jobs of last resort, what happens when we automate those away?
  - rosser 9y ago
    You're right; I spoke hyperbolically, to fend off pointless counter-arguments of the "the invention of cars put buggy-whip manufacturers out of business, but look how many jobs that created!" sort. In the short-to-medium term, there aren't enough jobs to go around. Automation is only making that worse, and we haven't yet come up with a meaningful alternative for the folks who are being displaced. As for the long term, my crystal ball doesn't work too well, that far out. Maybe we will come up with something for them, but the alternatives I've seen tossed around suggest everyone will end up trying to market someone else's products, or services jobs. It doesn't strike me as readily apparent there will be enough of those jobs to go around, either. So, it's perhaps more accurate to say "there are always alternative jobs, but probably not for everyone", which really just reinforces the point that efficiency-ing away this thing we've predicated the functioning of our society upon doesn't ultimately serve us very well.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
Sane definitions of "efficiency" don't mean that the people producing food have an average income in the negative numbers, nor that they're forced to use crop choices and fertilization methods that kill the land over time. That's not efficient, just exploitative and brittle.
bsder 9y ago
Maximally efficient is minimally robust. Perhaps we should prioritize food supply reliability over maximal efficiency. If shipping around the world suddenly stopped (perhaps due to war), our food supply would become very unhealthy with very little choice until we had a growing season or two to rediversify.

taurath 9y ago

I think that ship really has sailed, as there is no longer the expertise and it would be a considerable downgrade in supply to switch back to smaller farms (though I support lessening the burden). The idea of call centers and "remote" workplaces come to mind frequently - in theory anywhere with an internet connection should be able to find people cheap to do any digital work that needs doing. We need to find a way to not concentrate all the wealth in cities.

Zigurd 9y ago
Re "We need to find a way to not concentrate all the wealth in cities." You have the crux of the matter right, but the goal might be unattainable in practice. Urbanization is currently a strong force in all economies. In the developing world, it mostly isn't a bad thing because it improves conditions for migrants from rural areas. It's an open question whether it's a bad thing in developed economies, especially if it reduces the kind of residual racism and intolerance that brews in the countryside. It's not just economic poverty that is reduced by urbanization. In other words, the calls for understanding "flyover country" and healing the rural economy can prove to be futile. If they are futile or unrealistic, what then?
- taurath 9y ago
  It certainly could be, but the jury is still out - plenty of things could come in and change the calculus. I’m not of the opinion that it’s a foregone conclusion, but I also don’t have a whole lot of ideas as to how to make that part of the country support the people living in it.
lev99 9y ago
Call centers and remote offices under perform their Head Quarters counterpart. The best building to work (for your career) is almost always the one where the C-suite has their offices.
- taurath 9y ago
  Of course they do, but do they underperform to the point that the cost difference means nothing? I’d argue there’s plenty of room for lower efficiency but at vastly lower cost. If you have an office of 1000 employees making $60k vs $100k you’re saving at least 25% (after benefits/healthcare), let alone real estate. You could operate offices at 75% productivity and still come ahead, no? I ask out of actual curiosity.