4 ms·

I have to disagree with you. Or maybe farming is just terrible here in the US because of all the rules and crap with companies like Monsanto. Where I come from

by chirau 5y ago

I have to disagree with you. Or maybe farming is just terrible here in the US because of all the rules and crap with companies like Monsanto. Where I come from, farming is a pretty fulfilling endeavor. Both my parents left senior corporate roles to pursue farming because they love it so much. Even when they made their first money working, they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend. They started from working the farm themselves all the way to employing people. They are absolutely happy and have zero regrets about it. This is not an isolated incident either, a number of guys I went to school with have since started farming. It is not as lucrative for some of them as some jobs there were in, but they were very happy to leave their jobs and pursue farming full time. These are folk in South Africa, Australia, Zimbabwe, Ireland and a few other places. In a lot of countries, you will find that many people work hard in day to day jobs so that they can eventually get a farm, move there and live happily.

quacked 5y ago
My understanding of farming is closer to yours. Farming in order to afford property tax, healthcare, college tuition, retirement savings, mortgage, and your own costs in crops, livestock, or tools is hellish and terrifying. If those costs are substantially reduced so you don't have to scale your farm to an incredible level in order to avoid eviction and poverty, farming as your main profession becomes a more achievable goal.
obeid 5y ago
Farming is also terrible where your parents own their farm, maybe not for your parents who sound like are no longer farming. You should ask their employees, i.e., the actual farmers.
thisisnico 5y ago
Both of my parents grew up as farmers. It's an astronomical amount of work. The costs are insane, unless you have massive scale it's impossible to compete. The farmland was sold off to large scale farming operations because they can afford to handle ups/downs, they can make extremely efficient use of the incredibly expensive equipment needed to farm. The only way I can see someone successful in a farming endeavour is doing something super niche and hands-on that's highly profitable and doesn't require a ton of land. I'm thinking like apple orchards or vineyards. Additionally you could make your own specialist products and set up a small market to sell them. This is popular where I live.
- op00to 5y ago
  Or you’re rich and you just don’t care if you lose a crop which would literally bankrupt other small farmers
hondo77 5y ago
> ...they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend. That's not farming for a living. That is a hobby. Big difference.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I think perhaps you need to read the comment closer: > left senior corporate roles to pursue farming > when they made their first money working, they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend > from working the farm themselves all the way to employing peoplefrom working the farm themselves all the way to employing people My interpretation of that is they bought the land and worked it weekends while they still had corporate jobs, but left those roles to focus on the farm, and now even employ people to work it with them. That's not what I would call a hobby. It does seem to be farming for a living, given no alternative/additional jobs are mentioned.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think reasonable people can agree that there is not a single farming experience. There are more and less successful farms based on their business model and business environment. There are also differences in people's disposition. There are hobby farms, family farms, and multinational businesses. In my experience, the biggest concerns are crop performance and government policy. All the farmers I know in california recently recently had their lives ruined when the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. They lost their retirement, land value, 30 years of capital investment, and their entire life's labor. It is heartbreaking and I wouldnt be surprised if some of them commit suicide.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could connect to the aquifer you could take as much as you want, regardless of your size of land or need, and the collapse of the aquifers during overuse in drought caused entire cities to lose access to water as their wells dried up, and the farmers that could afford to dig deeper wells to access more water did so. Much of this was in support of farmers switching to more water intensive crops that were worth more (like almonds) because they could take advantage of the lax water rights of the state. This has been a long time coming and reported widely and loudly for a decade now. Farmers in CA knew they had a choice over that time to either try to be part of a solution by switching to less water intensive crops and try to help (and possibly not be entirely caught unprepared as a major resource went from essentially free and unlimited to definitely not) but lose out on the additional income that granted them, or to continue to try to cash in on the status quo and make the problem worse but as a gamble because they could be caught out if it changes from under them, or to remove themselves from that market and do something else. I don't wish death or suicide on any of them, but it's not like this isn't a problem they had no part in bringing about, or like the entire state should suffer because they wanted to keep the status quo, so my sympathy is offset to some degree by those facts.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I'm for balancing aquifers for long term sustainability, but the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. If the state wants your house for public benefit, they have to pay you for it at market rate. They can't just size it and throw you on the street. The current implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (GWMA) is largely ignores prior ownership and is in conflict with CA property law. [edit] The 2014 GWMA did not dissolve groundwater rights, but rather enabled the levying of arbitrarily high fines for exercising those rights. They don't have to use eminent domain to purchase the groundwater rights, but farmers cant use them. In this way, it hopes to let the sate have its cake and eat it too. I suspect the implementation will eventually be overturned and revised by the courts, but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything.

by chirau 5y ago

quacked 5y ago

My understanding of farming is closer to yours. Farming in order to afford property tax, healthcare, college tuition, retirement savings, mortgage, and your own costs in crops, livestock, or tools is hellish and terrifying. If those costs are substantially reduced so you don't have to scale your farm to an incredible level in order to avoid eviction and poverty, farming as your main profession becomes a more achievable goal.

obeid 5y ago

Farming is also terrible where your parents own their farm, maybe not for your parents who sound like are no longer farming. You should ask their employees, i.e., the actual farmers.

thisisnico 5y ago

Both of my parents grew up as farmers. It's an astronomical amount of work. The costs are insane, unless you have massive scale it's impossible to compete. The farmland was sold off to large scale farming operations because they can afford to handle ups/downs, they can make extremely efficient use of the incredibly expensive equipment needed to farm. The only way I can see someone successful in a farming endeavour is doing something super niche and hands-on that's highly profitable and doesn't require a ton of land. I'm thinking like apple orchards or vineyards. Additionally you could make your own specialist products and set up a small market to sell them. This is popular where I live.

op00to 5y ago
Or you’re rich and you just don’t care if you lose a crop which would literally bankrupt other small farmers

hondo77 5y ago

> ...they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend. That's not farming for a living. That is a hobby. Big difference.

kbenson 5y ago
I think perhaps you need to read the comment closer: > left senior corporate roles to pursue farming > when they made their first money working, they bought a piece of land and were there pretty much every weekend > from working the farm themselves all the way to employing peoplefrom working the farm themselves all the way to employing people My interpretation of that is they bought the land and worked it weekends while they still had corporate jobs, but left those roles to focus on the farm, and now even employ people to work it with them. That's not what I would call a hobby. It does seem to be farming for a living, given no alternative/additional jobs are mentioned.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I think reasonable people can agree that there is not a single farming experience. There are more and less successful farms based on their business model and business environment. There are also differences in people's disposition. There are hobby farms, family farms, and multinational businesses. In my experience, the biggest concerns are crop performance and government policy. All the farmers I know in california recently recently had their lives ruined when the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. They lost their retirement, land value, 30 years of capital investment, and their entire life's labor. It is heartbreaking and I wouldnt be surprised if some of them commit suicide.

kbenson 5y ago
> the state eminent domained their water rights without compensation. To be fair, the water rights in California were asinine, to the point that if you could connect to the aquifer you could take as much as you want, regardless of your size of land or need, and the collapse of the aquifers during overuse in drought caused entire cities to lose access to water as their wells dried up, and the farmers that could afford to dig deeper wells to access more water did so. Much of this was in support of farmers switching to more water intensive crops that were worth more (like almonds) because they could take advantage of the lax water rights of the state. This has been a long time coming and reported widely and loudly for a decade now. Farmers in CA knew they had a choice over that time to either try to be part of a solution by switching to less water intensive crops and try to help (and possibly not be entirely caught unprepared as a major resource went from essentially free and unlimited to definitely not) but lose out on the additional income that granted them, or to continue to try to cash in on the status quo and make the problem worse but as a gamble because they could be caught out if it changes from under them, or to remove themselves from that market and do something else. I don't wish death or suicide on any of them, but it's not like this isn't a problem they had no part in bringing about, or like the entire state should suffer because they wanted to keep the status quo, so my sympathy is offset to some degree by those facts.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I'm for balancing aquifers for long term sustainability, but the way to do it is to buy the groundwater rights from farmers who own them. If the state wants your house for public benefit, they have to pay you for it at market rate. They can't just size it and throw you on the street. The current implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (GWMA) is largely ignores prior ownership and is in conflict with CA property law. [edit] The 2014 GWMA did not dissolve groundwater rights, but rather enabled the levying of arbitrarily high fines for exercising those rights. They don't have to use eminent domain to purchase the groundwater rights, but farmers cant use them. In this way, it hopes to let the sate have its cake and eat it too. I suspect the implementation will eventually be overturned and revised by the courts, but not before most of the farmers harmed have lost everything.