3 ms·

Is "Land Owners" less surprising?

• bilbo0s 13y ago
  True. It wouldn't surprise me if they were using the term "Farmer" loosely. EDIT: Now that I look closer, they did say "Farmer/Rancher". So I guess that could be taken as a hint that this is not the low end manual guy they are talking about, so much as the landowner.
  • randomdata 13y ago
    Farm labourers are generally not considered farmers. I would not really expect them to deviate from that classification. However, you do not need to own land to be considered a farmer either (i.e. you could rent land to meet the criteria). Though misc. agriculture workers doesn't fall much further behind on the list.
• vacri 13y ago
  "Groundskeeping workers" was a surprise.
  • bilbo0s 13y ago
    Well that they explained in the article. "...Grounds cleaning/maintenance workers are 44 percent black, but groundskeepers are 90 percent white..." So [I assume] they draw a distinction between the worker and the boss. Also, the Groundskeepers MAY have specialized knowledge. Degrees in botany or business for instance. (Maybe even both???) Not saying they do... just pointing out that we don't know a lot about that profession and so there may be more going on than can be seen from the numbers.
    • vacri 13y ago
      It just seems a very odd way to describe bosses - as 'workers'. Usually 'workers' refers to the people doing the grunt work. It's a bit like calling middle management "management workers"; techinically correct but not the way people actually reference them. I wonder why they didn't just say 'groundskeepers'? When the revolutionaries say "workers of the world unite", they usually don't mean to include the bosses :)