3 ms·

> a certain (fairly low) point having more farmers would not help anything. Not help anything? Those farmers have to eat. After a certain low point you are in

• joshuapants 12y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. I said there would be diminishing returns on labor per acre. Having 100 people swarming an acre of crops is more likely to damage things than help them.
  • cplease 12y ago
    The point is it's not diminishing returns or "not helping", approaching some maximum efficiency, but rather it is negative returns. Even before you get to the point of squeezing out maximum yield, more farmers are going to eat up all the net yield they contribute and then some. Subsistence farming has not historically been a great lifestyle.
    • msandford 12y ago
      Right, but in the US the average farming ratio is 0.001 farmers per acre. Going to 0.03 farmers per acre is a 30x increase in "labor intensity" but may well be below negative returns.
      • cplease 12y ago
        That number doesn't count migrant workers, which would grossly inflate the US average. Also, the US average is not typical.