While you are partially correct, there is a lot of information you aren't privvy to, aparently.
While tractors are more efficient now, they aren't efficient enough to make up the difference in cost. And besides, the only time that efficiency counts, is when the farmer gets more land. If a farmer's family had 200 acres in 1902, and still has 200 acres now, efficiency doesn't change. That $7,000 grain harvester (combine) puchased in 1902 does the same ammount of work as that quarter-million dollar 2002 model combine.
The cost of labor per bushel has NOT plummeted. Sure it takes less people now, but the labor of each person costs more. Legally, farmers can't pay somebody $5/hr to work on their farms. They have to pay minimum wage, unemployment, etc... just as the large corporations do. There is a little bit of leeway, but not that much. Even to hire a "temp" worker from a staffing agency at $6/hr costs the farmer from $12-$16 per hour.
And yeild per acre has gone up, yes. But not in reality. When a farmer has water rights for their farm, that is based on the "waterable" land when the original water rights were assigned. Out of 200 acres, maybe only 150 acres has official water rights, depending on the layout of the land (water won't travel up hill.) With newer technologies, such as sprinkler irrigation systems, the farmer has been able to farm all 200 acres. BUT, now the farmer is getting fined for using too much water, even though the watering method is more efficient. In a sense, too much of their land is receiving water, even though their total water usage has gone down.
I am not pulling this information out of a newspaper article I have read somewhere. My parents and grandparents, and generations before them, are and were farmers. My dad complains about tractor cost (and repair costs are another can of worms,) labor cost, and the fines they are being charged for trying to make better use of their land. As a result, farmers are leaving more of their land dormant, just so they don't have to pay the fines.
I know the reality of the farmers' financial situation. That is why I chose not to carry on the family tradition, as are many other people. The large corporate farmers are making quite a bit of money, the small family farms are not. And I don't know of any farmer in my area that has received a "bonus" or supplement from the government for being a farmer. Not a one.
I did read an article a while back that had some numbers. For that $1.50 loaf of bread you buy in the store, about $.03 of that is paid to the farmer for his work. There were similar rates of inflation for eggs, milk, vegetables, etc. A lot of this is caused by the amount of goods we import from other countries. They can offer it to the US cheaper because they aren't under a lot of restrictions, such as chemicals, and can get what is banned in the USA cheaper than what we can use. NAFTA only opened this gap even more.
With all of the propaganda being spread about how much farmers make, I'm not surprised how many people think farmers are rich. Sickened, but not surprised. Ask yourself this question: Would you work from 3:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night during the spring/summer/fall seasons for just enough wages to pay your bills and eat? That is what a family farmer in the United States does. And the winter that most people think farmers have off? That is spent repairing machinery that has worn and/or broken down during the farm season. Most farmers do more work in a month than most people will do in a lifetime. That is their choice, don't get me wrong, but the least we can do is thank them, and show them the respect they deserve, not sit around and complain about how much money you think they make.
Again, thank a farmer 3 times a day. Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. And when a slow-moving implement slows you down on the way to watch a movie, remind yourself that rather than honking and flipping him off, you should wave at him and smile on the way by, because if he weren't doing that, you would be out in your garden growing your food instead of watching that movie.
Exactly. When Napster was around, I worked as a DJ and Engineer at the last (or at least close to it) independant radio station in the market. We were a "AAA" station, which meant we played different music than most of the "Top 40" stations. Sure, a few songs overlapped, but for the most part they were completely different sounds. The station was bought by Journal Broadcasting Group a couple of years back, but that is the usual story.
The station music library, while in digital format in the automation system, was also kept on "The Wall" which was a wall in the broadcast studio that contained the CDs for every song we played. Most of them weren't singles, so if I heard a song I liked, I could look at the screen to see what was currently (or recently) playing, grab the CD off the wall and listen to it.
Napster was the same thing to me. I listened to a lot of streaming stations and DMX (Satellite radio) stations that played different stuff. If I heard a song I liked, I would go download a few other tracks. Sure I found the usual one-hit-wonders, but I also found a lot of artists whose debut tracks were the worst ones on the album. If there were more than 2 or 3 songs I liked on the album, I bought the CD.
IMHO, the recording industry also shot themselves in the foot when they took over the Lyrics Database (http://www.lyrics.ch) a couple of years back. I used it to find out what songs were. Now-a-days, if you hear a song you like, you can't call the DJ and ask him/her what it is. Most stations are remotely programmed, with nobody live in the building, let alone the studio. Since you could search by lyrics, you could type in a phrase from the song and usually find out what it was.
I've lost count of how many CDs I purchased because of the Lyrics Database/Napster combo. For some reason, the Demolition Man movie situation with the fast food chains are starting to look like the music industry here. Soon we will all be eating at Taco Bell and listening to Brittany Spears. And touching another person will be illegal. Happy Day.
Slashdot Mirror
While you are partially correct, there is a lot of information you aren't privvy to, aparently.
While tractors are more efficient now, they aren't efficient enough to make up the difference in cost. And besides, the only time that efficiency counts, is when the farmer gets more land. If a farmer's family had 200 acres in 1902, and still has 200 acres now, efficiency doesn't change. That $7,000 grain harvester (combine) puchased in 1902 does the same ammount of work as that quarter-million dollar 2002 model combine.
The cost of labor per bushel has NOT plummeted. Sure it takes less people now, but the labor of each person costs more. Legally, farmers can't pay somebody $5/hr to work on their farms. They have to pay minimum wage, unemployment, etc... just as the large corporations do. There is a little bit of leeway, but not that much. Even to hire a "temp" worker from a staffing agency at $6/hr costs the farmer from $12-$16 per hour.
And yeild per acre has gone up, yes. But not in reality. When a farmer has water rights for their farm, that is based on the "waterable" land when the original water rights were assigned. Out of 200 acres, maybe only 150 acres has official water rights, depending on the layout of the land (water won't travel up hill.) With newer technologies, such as sprinkler irrigation systems, the farmer has been able to farm all 200 acres. BUT, now the farmer is getting fined for using too much water, even though the watering method is more efficient. In a sense, too much of their land is receiving water, even though their total water usage has gone down.
I am not pulling this information out of a newspaper article I have read somewhere. My parents and grandparents, and generations before them, are and were farmers. My dad complains about tractor cost (and repair costs are another can of worms,) labor cost, and the fines they are being charged for trying to make better use of their land. As a result, farmers are leaving more of their land dormant, just so they don't have to pay the fines.
I know the reality of the farmers' financial situation. That is why I chose not to carry on the family tradition, as are many other people. The large corporate farmers are making quite a bit of money, the small family farms are not. And I don't know of any farmer in my area that has received a "bonus" or supplement from the government for being a farmer. Not a one.
I did read an article a while back that had some numbers. For that $1.50 loaf of bread you buy in the store, about $.03 of that is paid to the farmer for his work. There were similar rates of inflation for eggs, milk, vegetables, etc. A lot of this is caused by the amount of goods we import from other countries. They can offer it to the US cheaper because they aren't under a lot of restrictions, such as chemicals, and can get what is banned in the USA cheaper than what we can use. NAFTA only opened this gap even more.
With all of the propaganda being spread about how much farmers make, I'm not surprised how many people think farmers are rich. Sickened, but not surprised. Ask yourself this question: Would you work from 3:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night during the spring/summer/fall seasons for just enough wages to pay your bills and eat? That is what a family farmer in the United States does. And the winter that most people think farmers have off? That is spent repairing machinery that has worn and/or broken down during the farm season. Most farmers do more work in a month than most people will do in a lifetime. That is their choice, don't get me wrong, but the least we can do is thank them, and show them the respect they deserve, not sit around and complain about how much money you think they make.
Again, thank a farmer 3 times a day. Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner. And when a slow-moving implement slows you down on the way to watch a movie, remind yourself that rather than honking and flipping him off, you should wave at him and smile on the way by, because if he weren't doing that, you would be out in your garden growing your food instead of watching that movie.
Exactly. When Napster was around, I worked as a DJ and Engineer at the last (or at least close to it) independant radio station in the market. We were a "AAA" station, which meant we played different music than most of the "Top 40" stations. Sure, a few songs overlapped, but for the most part they were completely different sounds. The station was bought by Journal Broadcasting Group a couple of years back, but that is the usual story.
The station music library, while in digital format in the automation system, was also kept on "The Wall" which was a wall in the broadcast studio that contained the CDs for every song we played. Most of them weren't singles, so if I heard a song I liked, I could look at the screen to see what was currently (or recently) playing, grab the CD off the wall and listen to it.
Napster was the same thing to me. I listened to a lot of streaming stations and DMX (Satellite radio) stations that played different stuff. If I heard a song I liked, I would go download a few other tracks. Sure I found the usual one-hit-wonders, but I also found a lot of artists whose debut tracks were the worst ones on the album. If there were more than 2 or 3 songs I liked on the album, I bought the CD.
IMHO, the recording industry also shot themselves in the foot when they took over the Lyrics Database (http://www.lyrics.ch) a couple of years back. I used it to find out what songs were. Now-a-days, if you hear a song you like, you can't call the DJ and ask him/her what it is. Most stations are remotely programmed, with nobody live in the building, let alone the studio. Since you could search by lyrics, you could type in a phrase from the song and usually find out what it was.
I've lost count of how many CDs I purchased because of the Lyrics Database/Napster combo. For some reason, the Demolition Man movie situation with the fast food chains are starting to look like the music industry here. Soon we will all be eating at Taco Bell and listening to Brittany Spears. And touching another person will be illegal. Happy Day.