7 ms·

I'm from rural Eastern Colorado (think Kansas but you can see a mountain far off) and I've know farmers/ranchers who've committed suicide but I don't think any

I'm from rural Eastern Colorado (think Kansas but you can see a mountain far off) and I've know farmers/ranchers who've committed suicide but I don't think any was due to financial stress. It's anecdotal but all were doing quite well. I think the lack of meaning in their lives due to farm subsidies in the form of soil conservation may be the root cause. Every farmer knows how the game is played. Do whatever it takes to get several years of high yields, then you'll be offered money from the gov to not farm, based on those yields. But nobody tells them about the depression that sets in when a farmer is paid to not farm - to loose the teleo of one's existence. It's sad to see and since those "soil conservation" contacts can be up to 10 years long, it's a long time to get out of that funk. Again, anecdotal, but I've never heard of a farmer who had land to work and the ability to work it commit suicide.

mrec 8y ago
Interesting. We have relatively high rural suicide rates in the UK too, and a similar "paid to not farm" situation via the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, but the causal waters are muddied here by farmers being among the very few people with access to firearms.
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  Farmers under the CAP aren’t just paid “to not farm” but also paid to perform conservation work, and fields that aren’t being used to grow crops can be used as pasture for livestock (to my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong) and it’s also integrated into crop rotation (where you need a fallow-field for a couple of years anyway) - so I mean the concept of “being paid not to farm” is a misrepresentation.
  - mrec 8y ago
    I take your point, and I was mostly just pointing out the parallels with OP's description of the US (which also included "soil conservation"). For the CAP, my reading is that most of the payment really is just for "not farming" - the cross-compliance rules expect a bit more, yes, but the penalties for not doing so are pretty light - you only have a 1% chance of getting inspected per year, and even repeated and intentional noncompliance normally only knocks 20% off your payments. I'm looking at page 12 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579836/Cross_Compliance_2017_rules_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... - I'm not involved with farming though, so take anything I say with a generous pinch of salt.
simonsarris 8y ago
Interesting theory. That people want to work (more than for just the money) is one of the reasons I am very skeptical of UBI. I think that people want to work, and we apparently don't structure communities very well for people to just pick up meaningful work (or even volunteering) as a hobby.
- lightbyte 8y ago
  >That people want to work (more than for just the money) is one of the reasons I am very skeptical of UBI. This is interesting, can you elaborate? I would expect most people would continue to work if given UBI and it would even encourage people to do work they like to do instead of what makes them the most money, but it sounds like you are predicting the opposite.
  - simonsarris 8y ago
    > it would even encourage people to do work they like to do instead of what makes them the most money But clearly this doesn't play out with the farmers in question here! They are not freed from the shackles of work for a year or three, busily following their passion. They are committing suicide. That isn't to say that the majority go in that direction, but its enough to measure, and should be enough to give us pause I think. The majority of men on UBI-like programs seem to watch TV and take drugs, and not follow passions. I've written a fair bit about UBI and contrasting it with basic jobs, here: https://medium.com/s/story/after-universal-basic-income-the-flood-217db9889c07 https://medium.com/s/story/after-universal-basic-income-the-... Related to this discussion see the section, "The Existential Problem", and if you have the time I suggest you read the two articles (NPR 'unfit for work' and Commentary Mag 'our miserable 21st century') that I link to in that section. Not in the above article but broadly speaking, the work disincentive for UBI tests so far is about 10%. That is, 10% of the people given something like UBI will drop out of the labor force and not do any kind of (measurable) work. Some % of that 10% will go on to commit suicide, I imagine, like the farmers here. Citations for the ~10% figure can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17666307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17666307 Something about being given money and having no work to do, plus no community or purpose, does not cause people to create community or purpose. My fear here is that instead of working towards making sure people can, somehow, create more community and purpose, we're taking the one thing many people find meaning in (work) and pulling the rug out from under them on it, like we are possibly doing to the farmers here. Sorry, having a hard time being succinct. What I am suggesting is that we have got to solve this "no community or purpose" issue before we solve the "money" issue. It's bigger, and if we don't, we might not like the future very much.
nappy 8y ago
I would be curious to hear your perspective on the impact of loneliness and isolation that the article touches on.
- sparrish 8y ago
  I think the loneliness and isolation aspect of this report is projection by a possibly urban author. Most rural farmers I know are at least third generation and grew up in the sticks. They get anxious when they go to the city, itching to get back to the of rural life of 'isolation'. Folks in these small communities are physically far apart but closer than most communities I've experience in cities and even suburbs. That said, if you get sideways with your rural community, you can be ostracized by the whole and it's nearly impossible to overcome that stigma - it can last a lifetime. That may have involvement in the mental illness issues for sure.
bacon_waffle 8y ago
> Again, anecdotal, but I've never heard of a farmer who had land to work and the ability to work it commit suicide. Farmer suicide has been in the news down here (New Zealand) lately. Just to pick one article - https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/farm-suicides-spur-desperate-call https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/farm-suicides-spur-despe... I'm not involved in agriculture, but the impression I get is that the main stressors have been weather and disease. Both of those have led to major animal culling operations, which must be terrible to have to follow through.
lkrubner 8y ago
The farm subsidies could be spent to buy them out permanently, which would probably be better for everyone. Right now the government treats this as an expense, instead of an investment. Low farm prices mean supply outruns demand, so something needs to be done to lower that supply. Instead of annual subsidies, the government could instead have a fund that buys farms and converts it to a park. That would be a win-win strategy: more parkland would be good for the environment (imagine I write all necessary qualifiers here) and the total supply of farm land would be reduced, permanently, thus bringing supply and demand closer to an equilibrium point.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  I was under the impression most farm subsidies (> 2/3) in the US go to extremely large corporations - they want the annual subsidies because it keeps them in business every year and can afford the lobbyists/PACs to pressure congresspeople to vote for the subsidies in Congress.
  - palisade 8y ago
    Nope, even small farms receive them. And, most of the farms in the U.S. are actually owned by rural families, not large corporations. Edit: When I think of evil megacorp PACs and their lobbyists, I don't think of agriculture at all. Farmers have it rough; droughts, infestations, blights, hedging bets, fabricated news / inaccurate prices to keep exports flowing that eat their bottom lines, high machinery and supplies costs and the already tough job of growing something from nothing while meeting stiff competition. Not to mention being a thankless job. Few care or understand how the food ends up on their table.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      But isn't most of the land managed by companies? Does 'most of the farms' mean lots of small holdings?
      - palisade 8y ago
throwaway76543 8y ago
Your comment reminds me of the paradoxical fact that countries with high "life satisfaction" scores have higher rates of suicide: http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-states-have-the-highest-suicide-rates/ http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-state... This trend is also seen throughout the socio-economic strata: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/why-suicides-are-more-common-in-richer-neighborhoods/ http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/why-suicides-are-more-co... . To wit: Poor people kill each other, rich people kill themselves. It's a very curious dynamic.
- unfocused13 8y ago
  Could it be possible that financially well-off people feel less stigma about suicide because the people they leave behind would not be affected as negatively as if they were poor? For example, a poor inner-city parent committing suicide would leave behind children in danger of falling into poverty. But a wealthy parent would know their children could be "all right" living off of the insurance and inherited wealth from the parent.
  - modells 8y ago
    Yes and no. If you look at the difference in general, average of lives: - poorer people have more friends whom, by poverty, aren't as able to move as much as first-world people, more physical labor (exercise), more children depending on them and fewer choices / expectations / freedoms... the net effects of these factors lead to less idleness, less depression and more happiness - rich, first-world people have shallower friends whom move a lot, less physical work (more sedentary, less exercise), fewer children and infinite choices... more idleness, more depression and less satisfaction. Also, if your entire Maslow hierarchy of needs is met, what do you do? What's your purpose? What meaningful problem can you solve or world condition can you change? These sort of existential crises, I think, lead to most suicides because people feel they have no purpose, no function, no power, no influence and therefore don't matter.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
philwelch 8y ago
Ever notice how working dogs usually aren't as neurotic as pet dogs? I've never met a well-mannered Pomeranian, but even if you get a dog of a stalwart herding breed and leave it idle, it's going to go nuts and run around nipping at little kids and tearing up your house. That's the hell of the rural farming and working class in America today. Proponents of UBI and the like assume that, if they're freed from the burden of pulling their own weight economically, people will move on to "higher pursuits" like art and philosophy and the like. I think there's a clear upper-middle-class bias in these discussions where people genuinely don't understand that other types of work can still provide meaning and purpose and fulfillment to people.
- trhway 8y ago
  >how working dogs usually aren't as neurotic as pet dogs there is strong survival bias here. >I've never met a well-mannered Pomeranian similar bias. Being a well-mannered for Pomeranian is different than being that for a St.Bernard. With all those biases taken into account and understanding the limits of so wide a generalization - yes, "the good behaving dog (and i'd say happy dog) is well tired dog" as any dog owner knows :)
- coolaliasbro 8y ago
  Why wouldn't people spend their extra time and resources to reclaim/occupy/homestead/etc. open spaces for the benefit of themselves and their communities?
gammarator 8y ago
The relevant program is the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) [1], which is explicitly intended for environmentally sensitive areas. Given the requirements imposed on the land it is (in my own anecdotal experience, central US) unlikely that one would be able to put an entire farm into it and "get paid not to farm." It's also not linked to "high yields." [1] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-...

mrec 8y ago

Interesting. We have relatively high rural suicide rates in the UK too, and a similar "paid to not farm" situation via the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, but the causal waters are muddied here by farmers being among the very few people with access to firearms.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
Farmers under the CAP aren’t just paid “to not farm” but also paid to perform conservation work, and fields that aren’t being used to grow crops can be used as pasture for livestock (to my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong) and it’s also integrated into crop rotation (where you need a fallow-field for a couple of years anyway) - so I mean the concept of “being paid not to farm” is a misrepresentation.
- mrec 8y ago
  I take your point, and I was mostly just pointing out the parallels with OP's description of the US (which also included "soil conservation"). For the CAP, my reading is that most of the payment really is just for "not farming" - the cross-compliance rules expect a bit more, yes, but the penalties for not doing so are pretty light - you only have a 1% chance of getting inspected per year, and even repeated and intentional noncompliance normally only knocks 20% off your payments. I'm looking at page 12 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579836/Cross_Compliance_2017_rules_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... - I'm not involved with farming though, so take anything I say with a generous pinch of salt.

simonsarris 8y ago

Interesting theory. That people want to work (more than for just the money) is one of the reasons I am very skeptical of UBI. I think that people want to work, and we apparently don't structure communities very well for people to just pick up meaningful work (or even volunteering) as a hobby.

lightbyte 8y ago
>That people want to work (more than for just the money) is one of the reasons I am very skeptical of UBI. This is interesting, can you elaborate? I would expect most people would continue to work if given UBI and it would even encourage people to do work they like to do instead of what makes them the most money, but it sounds like you are predicting the opposite.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  > it would even encourage people to do work they like to do instead of what makes them the most money But clearly this doesn't play out with the farmers in question here! They are not freed from the shackles of work for a year or three, busily following their passion. They are committing suicide. That isn't to say that the majority go in that direction, but its enough to measure, and should be enough to give us pause I think. The majority of men on UBI-like programs seem to watch TV and take drugs, and not follow passions. I've written a fair bit about UBI and contrasting it with basic jobs, here: https://medium.com/s/story/after-universal-basic-income-the-flood-217db9889c07 https://medium.com/s/story/after-universal-basic-income-the-... Related to this discussion see the section, "The Existential Problem", and if you have the time I suggest you read the two articles (NPR 'unfit for work' and Commentary Mag 'our miserable 21st century') that I link to in that section. Not in the above article but broadly speaking, the work disincentive for UBI tests so far is about 10%. That is, 10% of the people given something like UBI will drop out of the labor force and not do any kind of (measurable) work. Some % of that 10% will go on to commit suicide, I imagine, like the farmers here. Citations for the ~10% figure can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17666307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17666307 Something about being given money and having no work to do, plus no community or purpose, does not cause people to create community or purpose. My fear here is that instead of working towards making sure people can, somehow, create more community and purpose, we're taking the one thing many people find meaning in (work) and pulling the rug out from under them on it, like we are possibly doing to the farmers here. Sorry, having a hard time being succinct. What I am suggesting is that we have got to solve this "no community or purpose" issue before we solve the "money" issue. It's bigger, and if we don't, we might not like the future very much.

nappy 8y ago

I would be curious to hear your perspective on the impact of loneliness and isolation that the article touches on.

sparrish 8y ago
I think the loneliness and isolation aspect of this report is projection by a possibly urban author. Most rural farmers I know are at least third generation and grew up in the sticks. They get anxious when they go to the city, itching to get back to the of rural life of 'isolation'. Folks in these small communities are physically far apart but closer than most communities I've experience in cities and even suburbs. That said, if you get sideways with your rural community, you can be ostracized by the whole and it's nearly impossible to overcome that stigma - it can last a lifetime. That may have involvement in the mental illness issues for sure.

bacon_waffle 8y ago

> Again, anecdotal, but I've never heard of a farmer who had land to work and the ability to work it commit suicide. Farmer suicide has been in the news down here (New Zealand) lately. Just to pick one article - https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/farm-suicides-spur-desperate-call https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/farm-suicides-spur-despe... I'm not involved in agriculture, but the impression I get is that the main stressors have been weather and disease. Both of those have led to major animal culling operations, which must be terrible to have to follow through.

lkrubner 8y ago

The farm subsidies could be spent to buy them out permanently, which would probably be better for everyone. Right now the government treats this as an expense, instead of an investment. Low farm prices mean supply outruns demand, so something needs to be done to lower that supply. Instead of annual subsidies, the government could instead have a fund that buys farms and converts it to a park. That would be a win-win strategy: more parkland would be good for the environment (imagine I write all necessary qualifiers here) and the total supply of farm land would be reduced, permanently, thus bringing supply and demand closer to an equilibrium point.

stevenwoo 8y ago
I was under the impression most farm subsidies (> 2/3) in the US go to extremely large corporations - they want the annual subsidies because it keeps them in business every year and can afford the lobbyists/PACs to pressure congresspeople to vote for the subsidies in Congress.
- palisade 8y ago
  Nope, even small farms receive them. And, most of the farms in the U.S. are actually owned by rural families, not large corporations. Edit: When I think of evil megacorp PACs and their lobbyists, I don't think of agriculture at all. Farmers have it rough; droughts, infestations, blights, hedging bets, fabricated news / inaccurate prices to keep exports flowing that eat their bottom lines, high machinery and supplies costs and the already tough job of growing something from nothing while meeting stiff competition. Not to mention being a thankless job. Few care or understand how the food ends up on their table.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    But isn't most of the land managed by companies? Does 'most of the farms' mean lots of small holdings?
    - palisade 8y ago

throwaway76543 8y ago

Your comment reminds me of the paradoxical fact that countries with high "life satisfaction" scores have higher rates of suicide: http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-states-have-the-highest-suicide-rates/ http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/25/why-the-happiest-state... This trend is also seen throughout the socio-economic strata: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/why-suicides-are-more-common-in-richer-neighborhoods/ http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/why-suicides-are-more-co... . To wit: Poor people kill each other, rich people kill themselves. It's a very curious dynamic.

unfocused13 8y ago
Could it be possible that financially well-off people feel less stigma about suicide because the people they leave behind would not be affected as negatively as if they were poor? For example, a poor inner-city parent committing suicide would leave behind children in danger of falling into poverty. But a wealthy parent would know their children could be "all right" living off of the insurance and inherited wealth from the parent.
- modells 8y ago
  Yes and no. If you look at the difference in general, average of lives: - poorer people have more friends whom, by poverty, aren't as able to move as much as first-world people, more physical labor (exercise), more children depending on them and fewer choices / expectations / freedoms... the net effects of these factors lead to less idleness, less depression and more happiness - rich, first-world people have shallower friends whom move a lot, less physical work (more sedentary, less exercise), fewer children and infinite choices... more idleness, more depression and less satisfaction. Also, if your entire Maslow hierarchy of needs is met, what do you do? What's your purpose? What meaningful problem can you solve or world condition can you change? These sort of existential crises, I think, lead to most suicides because people feel they have no purpose, no function, no power, no influence and therefore don't matter.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

philwelch 8y ago

Ever notice how working dogs usually aren't as neurotic as pet dogs? I've never met a well-mannered Pomeranian, but even if you get a dog of a stalwart herding breed and leave it idle, it's going to go nuts and run around nipping at little kids and tearing up your house. That's the hell of the rural farming and working class in America today. Proponents of UBI and the like assume that, if they're freed from the burden of pulling their own weight economically, people will move on to "higher pursuits" like art and philosophy and the like. I think there's a clear upper-middle-class bias in these discussions where people genuinely don't understand that other types of work can still provide meaning and purpose and fulfillment to people.

trhway 8y ago
>how working dogs usually aren't as neurotic as pet dogs there is strong survival bias here. >I've never met a well-mannered Pomeranian similar bias. Being a well-mannered for Pomeranian is different than being that for a St.Bernard. With all those biases taken into account and understanding the limits of so wide a generalization - yes, "the good behaving dog (and i'd say happy dog) is well tired dog" as any dog owner knows :)
coolaliasbro 8y ago
Why wouldn't people spend their extra time and resources to reclaim/occupy/homestead/etc. open spaces for the benefit of themselves and their communities?

gammarator 8y ago

The relevant program is the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) [1], which is explicitly intended for environmentally sensitive areas. Given the requirements imposed on the land it is (in my own anecdotal experience, central US) unlikely that one would be able to put an entire farm into it and "get paid not to farm." It's also not linked to "high yields." [1] https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-...