[HN Gopher] Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
___________________________________________________________________
Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
Author : NaOH
Score : 153 points
Date : 2025-07-30 17:51 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.chicagotribune.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.chicagotribune.com)
| edwardbernays wrote:
| Forget China. The greatest threat to American freedom and global
| power is robber baron billionaires. We live in a full-on
| kleptocracy. It's about time we add some new amendments to the
| constitution to relevel the balance of powers.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Fortunately the Illinois governor can be counted on to take a
| stand against billionaires.
| edwardbernays wrote:
| true, we wish this brave and powerful man the best of luck as
| he takes on his matched opponents: the people in his
| socioeconomic bracket. amen.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| You jest, but the harsh truth is that almost no change in
| society is possible unless at least some of the societal
| elites are on the bandwagon.
| edwardbernays wrote:
| It's both sardonic and genuine. If he's genuine, then I
| genuinely wish him the best luck. However, it is very
| hard for me to believe that any billionaire would ever do
| something generally disfavorable to the current
| billionaire class. It's even harder for me to believe
| that, if one of them was to do so, that it would not be
| for their own further gain, just to the detriment of
| their peer cohort. I'm a bit jaded from having been lied
| to too many times.
|
| Again, however, if he is genuine: I genuinely wish him
| the best luck taking on his matched opponents.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Agreed.
| keybored wrote:
| ... or that's what they want you to believe
| autoexec wrote:
| I have to admit that for as corrupt as Illinois is, Pritzker
| has managed to support a few things which his billionaire
| buddies weren't too fond of. It's not all good, but it's
| better than I expected. He's called for higher taxes on the
| rich, stronger labor protections, higher minimum wages and
| better support for the poors.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Yeah I actually like JB, even though I'm somewhat
| uncomfortable with him being a billionaire.
| snarf21 wrote:
| The problem is that they have bought all three systems of
| government so they can do whatever they want. They own all the
| media as well. Even something like PBS that is supposed to be
| more independent is _highly_ dependent on "philanthropy" from
| these same billionaires and they've fallen victim to what I'm
| going to moniker as Sinclair's Law ("It is difficult to get
| someone to understand something when their salary depends upon
| not understanding it" -Upton Sinclair)
| keybored wrote:
| America just lives under capitalism.
| msgodel wrote:
| There are plenty of countries that don't like capitalism. If
| you don't like it you can move to one of those. You can even
| go somewhere like the UK if you don't want to give up the
| US's anglo/protestant culture.
| keybored wrote:
| Tell my mother and friends (hypothetical) that. Where do
| you get off, honestly? You also changed the subject.
|
| I also don't live in the US.
| sophacles wrote:
| Right. Most of it is owned by the llc the farmer set up for thier
| land, and/or the family trust set up to prevent the land from
| being split into ever smaller parcels by inheritance.
| perardi wrote:
| Yeah, that's how my farm land is set up.
|
| I inherited farm land from my grandfather. I am very much not a
| farmer, I do not want to live in Southern Illinois, but I don't
| want to give up the land, so I rent the land to a farmer with
| adjacent property.
|
| I realize that's not really the point of this article--this is
| more about huge firms buying up non-trivial amounts of land.
| exaldb wrote:
| https://archive.is/RgcAO
| create-username wrote:
| Thanks. Got a plain made: "The content is not available in your
| region". I'm actually happy the website content is a simple
| html document instead of JavaScript bloated with capitalism
| surveillance trackers
| bell-cot wrote:
| If you look at history, this is an _ancient_ pattern.
|
| In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the prohibitions against anyone
| acquiring ownership of land go all the way back to the Torah.
|
| Though like pretty much every religious prohibition on behaviors
| which the well-to-do want to do - those commandments fall under
| the "we never talk about that part" rule.
|
| EDIT:
|
| - Please note my "against anyone ACQUIRING ownership of"
| phrasing, above.
|
| - Details are in Leviticus, Chapter 25
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| There is no biblical prohibition against owning land, but there
| is plenty of debate, discussion and grappling with the problems
| of ownership and accumulation. It shows it always an issue, and
| rules and laws and social norms always need to be debated and
| changed.
| legitster wrote:
| In the Levitical law, there was specifically a concept that
| all of the land in Israel be split up equally among families.
| And that ownership of the land reverts every 49 years. So
| "buying" land was tantamount to a lease.
|
| There is actually some interesting scholarly work that shows
| such a system would work perfectly fine within a modern
| capitalist system - it would reduce inequality and neatly
| lines up with natural debt cycles.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| owning land? no, holding debt for longer than 7 years very much
| so.
|
| but you know, that interferes with commerce too much. (also
| part of the reason for huge amounts of anti-Semitism from about
| 1100-now )
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Most farms are not owned by farmers, most housing is not owned by
| tenants, most airplanes are not owned by airlines, etc., etc..
|
| Vertical integration can have benefits, but it isn't necessary
| and has drawbacks. Even when vertically integrated, regulations
| are often written under the assumption that everything is leased,
| not owned, so compliance is easier if you own a company that owns
| an asset, instead of owning that asset directly.
|
| For example, if two people carpool in a car that one of them
| owns, instead of hiring a taxi, they'll usually split the costs
| of the fuel and the wear on the car. On the other hand, if they
| were flying in a small airplane owned by one of them, it's
| illegal to split the costs of wear on the airplane, unless its a
| rental or air taxi. Because of this, and other similar effects of
| FAA regulations, many small airplane owners own a company that
| owns the airplane, instead of owning it outright, and rent the
| airplane from themselves, whenever they use it.
| GLdRH wrote:
| If you carpool for money, you're a taxi. And if you take a
| friend on your plane, and he gives you xEUR afterwards for gas
| money, how is that illegal?
|
| I'm sure you're right about the compliance thing in general,
| but I don't get your example.
| isaacdl wrote:
| It's actually an FAA regulation. If you are not a licensed
| commercial pilot, there are extremely strict rules on how and
| when you can accept ANY money for flying, use of an airplane,
| etc.
|
| Actually, even if you are a licensed commercial pilot, there
| are still strict rules around payment. You can be paid for
| your skill as a pilot, but you cannot, e.g. charge for giving
| rides in your personal airplane.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| > Actually, even if you are a licensed commercial pilot,
| there are still strict rules around payment. You can be
| paid for your skill as a pilot, but you cannot, e.g. charge
| for giving rides in your personal airplane.
|
| While that sounds like a bad rule when I first read it, I
| smell Chesterton's fence here. I'd like to understand why
| that regulation was written before getting rid of it.
| isaacdl wrote:
| It's a safety measure. When it comes to regulating
| aviation, in general, the FAA is concerned with
| protecting the public. The "public" doesn't generally
| have the knowledge to evaluate a pilot, aircraft, or the
| operation of an aviation venture. So, the FAA puts rules
| around these things. The private pilot is held to a much
| lower standard of skill than a commercial or airline
| pilot. But, that means that the FAA doesn't trust them to
| fly around the general public.
|
| You can take your friend for a spin in your plane if you
| want, or go screw around and kill yourself, but you
| cannot "hold out" your operation as an air taxi or
| airline to the general public, and you can't make money
| off of it in any situation.
|
| A commercial pilot has to undergo much more training in
| operating an aircraft safely. This means the FAA allows
| them to get paid to be a pilot - they could be hired to
| fly someone around in that person's plane. But the
| commercial license does not really train them in running
| a safe airline, so the FAA does not allow them to use
| their own plane to run an airline.
|
| EDIT: To word it differently, the opportunity to get paid
| increases the likelihood that someone will push limits or
| take unsafe risks. If you aren't under pressure to make
| your paycheck, you're less likely to take your passengers
| into marginal weather. (One of the most dangerous
| occupations in aviation is medivac/aviation EMS. There,
| the pressure isn't generally monetary but moral: you want
| to help a sick patient, so you take more risks.)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > If you aren't under pressure to make your paycheck,
| you're less likely to take your passengers into marginal
| weather. (One of the most dangerous occupations in
| aviation is medivac/aviation EMS. There, the pressure
| isn't generally monetary but moral: you want to help a
| sick patient, so you take more risks.)
|
| Critical care (but not flight) paramedic (though I have
| transferred patients hundreds of times to them):
|
| When we request Heli EMS tht providers are given patient
| details, but the pilot is strictly given "pickup" and
| "destination" (they used to be given patient weight, and
| may still be depending on location and size of helo, but
| generally not) - the goal being "evaluate safety based on
| weather conditions only, not a patient condition that
| tugs the heart strings".
| mandevil wrote:
| I'm not totally sure what the GP meant, but I think it
| has to do with the owning/operating organization of the
| plane not being a qualified (Part 121/135) company for
| commercial operations.
|
| A grandfather-in-law owned his own small business (a
| civil engineering firm), and had a plane that he flew to
| get to meetings/job sites across the Midwest. He could
| fly company employees just fine- and the company could
| reimburse him for the flight expense, and since it was
| not for the public that was fine. He could fly his family
| or friends on his own dime just fine. But if a family
| member or friend not working for the company tried to
| compensate him for the costs, then it is a question of
| "is his company actually an unlicensed airline?" and now
| we're getting into territory where it gets complicated.
| The FAA heavily regulates airlines, which is a major
| reason they are so safe. But there has to be a lower
| bound on what gets regulated, and avoiding that is what I
| think that GP is referencing.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| That makes sense, at least as a partial explanation.
| Thanks.
| cyberax wrote:
| > I'd like to understand why that regulation was written
| before getting rid of it.
|
| It's simple. Getting a commercial pilot license is a much
| more involved process than getting a private pilot
| license.
|
| A private pilot needs just around 30 hours of flight time
| to get a license. A commercial pilot needs at least 250
| hours and a medical certificate that needs to be renewed
| periodically.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > A commercial pilot needs at least 250 hours and a
| medical certificate that needs to be renewed
| periodically.
|
| That's true, but for anything other than the most podunk
| regional airline, you're going to need 1,500 PIC (pilot-
| in-command) hours before the airline will even consider
| you (although I believe I heard due to pilot shortages
| some airlines were willing to consider 1,000 hours).
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| > It's simple. Getting a commercial pilot license is a
| much more involved process than getting a private pilot
| license.
|
| I understood that. But the post I quoted said that you
| couldn't accept payment even if you were a licensed
| commercial pilot, if you owned the plane. I'd expect the
| 250 hours and the medical certificate to be enough to
| make it safe for you to accept payment, and apparently
| the regulators who formulated the rule don't think that's
| the case. I was saying that I'd like to understand why
| they don't think that's the case before I'd want to
| support any relief on that rule.
| cyberax wrote:
| > But the post I quoted said that you couldn't accept
| payment even if you were a licensed commercial pilot
|
| You absolutely can. But your _aircraft_ also has to be
| maintained to commercial standards (likely FAR 135).
|
| Basically, you need to operate an airline to carry paying
| passengers.
| ryandrake wrote:
| There _are_ strict rules, but in general small plane owners
| who are private, non-commercial pilots may still share
| operating costs with someone they bring along with them.
| 61.113(c) permits pilots to share operating expenses of a
| flight with passengers provided the pilot pays at least his
| or her pro rata share of the operating expenses of the
| flight. Operating expenses are limited to fuel, oil,
| airport expenditures and rental fees.
| aeternum wrote:
| Yes, regulation often inadvertently creates both barriers to
| entry and economies of scale.
|
| Government should focus on making it easier for new companies
| to compete as that is what generally yields better and/or less
| expensive products.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| _> Most farms are not owned by farmers, most housing is not
| owned by tenants, most airplanes are not owned by airlines,
| etc., etc.._
|
| Sounds nice but it's not true in the US. A majority (60%) of US
| land in farms is owner-operated.[1] US homeownership is 65%
| meaning most housing units are owner-occupied.[2] And 60% of
| North American airplanes are owner-operated not leased.[3]
|
| [1]https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-
| land-v... [2]https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates
| /2025/07/2... [3]https://www.iata.org/en/iata-
| repository/publications/economi...
| harmmonica wrote:
| Not trying to nitpick, but I guess I am. Does "most" really
| mean 65%? I tend to think most needs to clear a pretty high
| hurdle. I bring this up not to attack you, but I've noticed
| this behavior in journalism or when folks are trying to win
| arguments where instead of quoting the actual number they'll
| use a term like most, which I don't think has a hard and fast
| threshold.
|
| I guess, for me, most would have to be something north of 80%
| because it just doesn't feel right to use it below that. 65%
| would be majority, obviously, maybe significant majority or
| some such.
|
| Anyone else feel this way?
|
| Edit: if anyone else reads this, I totally shouldn't have
| even brought this up. Downvote away, but as other replies
| have pointed out I missed the definition of "most" when
| you're comparing numbers against each other.
| quesera wrote:
| I do not. For me, "most" is 50% + 1 (Edit: or more).
| harmmonica wrote:
| This is interesting. So you're saying that majority and
| most have the same meaning?
| quesera wrote:
| Yes, I think so:
|
| Most people who voted for US President in 2020, voted for
| Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
|
| The majority of people who voted for US President in
| 2020, voted for Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
|
| (I'm a native speaker, but there might be some regional
| differences here.)
| ImJamal wrote:
| I think most would usually mean plurality not 50% + 1. If
| there are 3 people and 2 of them have $5 each and the
| third has $6 it would be correct to say the third has the
| most money despite not having 50% + 1.
|
| Regardless, the majority is also the plurality so using
| most when it is over 50% would also be acceptable.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Most and majority mean more than half, in the context of
| proportions.
|
| >If there are 3 people and 2 of them have $5 each and the
| third has $6 it would be correct to say the third has the
| most money despite not having 50% + 1.
|
| This is not an applicable example, as most is not being
| used to refer to the proportion of money. It is using a
| different definition of most, which is the top rank when
| ranking things by quantity.
| leptons wrote:
| Too bad there aren't books that describe the meaning of
| words, so this website will have to do...
|
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/most
|
| No, "most" does not mean "80%" or any other made up number.
| harmmonica wrote:
| Not the friendliest way to reply, but are you saying 65%
| does not mean most? Just wondering if we're violently
| agreeing. I shouldn't have said 80%. Was just trying to
| articulate that most is a high threshold and also not
| defined as an absolute number.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but
| even going by that the first definition would mean any
| plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the threshold
| potentially lower than 50%.
|
| I prefer Merriam Webster, which is far more clear.
| Definition 2 (defn 1 does not apply in this context):
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most
| bbarnett wrote:
| We have multiple parties in Canada.
|
| There may be a minority government elected, with 40% of
| the seats, and 30%, 20%, 10% to other parties.
|
| The 40% party will be described as winning the most
| seats.
| harmmonica wrote:
| Ha, I gotta say after reading your reply I feel kind of
| dumb for even saying the 80%; I had blinders on. Most,
| when it's relative, is the highest of a set even if that
| number is super low. Totally spaced on that when I asked,
| but I was fixated on how it's used to define something
| that's a percentage like in the 65% example. It happens
| so frequently in journalism and it's frustrating because
| it's trying to make an argument that sometimes the
| numbers themselves don't support.
|
| Anyway, appreciate you reminding me (and I deserved to
| feel dumb so also making me feel a bit dumb about it).
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Yes, that is definition 1 (merriam-webster). This
| definition is often invoked by saying "the" before
| "most," as you did.
|
| It's a different definition than defn 2 (m-w), which is
| what is used when saying "Most farms are not owned by
| farmers."
|
| "The 40% party won the most seats" carries a different
| meaning than "The 40% party won most seats"
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's more complicated. They got "the most" seats but they
| didn't get "most" seats.
|
| Pure "most" is implicitly that option versus all the
| rest.
| LastTrain wrote:
| You have a misconception about what the word means. Most
| has a meaning: more than any other quantity. > 50% meets
| that definition every time, but even 2% could mean 'most'
| if everything else in the comparison is less than 2%.
| harmmonica wrote:
| You're right about the 2% and I just totally had blinders
| on when thinking of "most" used when comparing a set of
| numbers (where one of those numbers is the most in the
| set). I disagree with your ">50% meets..." comment, but
| pretty sure we're not going to agree on that one so I'll
| just shut up now.
| leptons wrote:
| No, "most" is not a high threshold. You can say "most"
| about 30% of something in a group, if the rest are
| splintered between other groups getting less than 30%.
|
| Maybe you should read the link I provided. It would
| likely clear up a lot of misconceptions for you.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| How much of the argicultural output do the 60% of owner-
| operated farms produce?
|
| I'd bet it's less than 60%
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Probably 40-65%. What is your point?
| arbor_day wrote:
| Have you seen how expensive a tractor or combine is? The
| economies of scale are real in farming.
|
| You need ~$1M worth of equipment to farm 80 acres (~$1M worth
| of land), but that same equipment can basically farm 800 acres
| (~10M worth of land). An equipment issue can destroy a years
| worth of work with 800 acres (e.g. frost damage from delays),
| but with 8000 acres you can have spares / avoid the loss with
| some overtime.
|
| Fertilizer and pesticides aren't neatly contained. If you farm
| different crops than your neighbors, overspray can kill your
| yield (e.g. weeds spray for corn kills soybeans). Laws around
| who can grow/spray what and being big helps make that better
| 9rx wrote:
| _> You need ~$1M worth of equipment to farm 80 acres_
|
| All new? That seems way too low. You'd struggle to get into a
| combine alone.
|
| Used? That seems way too high. I doubt I'd get any more than
| $300k for my equipment (and that's more than I paid) if I
| were to sell it today, and it's pretty nice equipment
| compared to what I see a lot of farmers using.
|
| _> 80 acres (~$1M worth of land)_
|
| We always wonder why so cheap? The 18 acres for sale down the
| road from me wants just about $1M (I expect that will be a
| hard sell, to be fair). The 130 acres further down the road
| wants nearly $4M (quite realistic; comparable parcels have
| sold for more). If you could pick up 80 acres in these parts
| for $1M, you just won the lottery. And, to be clear, it's not
| like on the edge of a city or something where other interests
| are driving up the price. It's just farmland. The yields are
| respectable, but not quite like Illinois will produce.
| arbor_day wrote:
| 1M was a nice round number for equipment. I see people
| without much land buy new equipment all the time, it's
| wild! They tend to not stick around long though.
|
| You must have better land than we do. Land by me goes for
| around 14K/ acre. The bigger plots or better land goes
| higher.
| bluGill wrote:
| Anyone with 80 acres is buying used tractors. They are
| likely hiring someone else with a combine to harvest their
| fields (harvest needs a lot more labor than the 80 acre
| farm has so when you hire a combine you get a team of 3-4
| people which also includes grain carts and semi trucks to
| get your grain from the field to the elevator (which might
| be something you own and might be something town).
|
| I work for John Deere, though I don't speak for the
| company. All tractors are built to order, which means when
| someone buys a new tractor the dealer has several months to
| sell the trade-in. When the new tractor arrives from the
| factory the truck unloads the new one, and loads the trade
| in to take to someone else. A good dealer will have a list
| of farmers and what equipment they all have so they can put
| this deal together. As a result the only tractors a dealer
| has are service loaners (which are sometimes rented), which
| makes all the accountants happy.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> Anyone with 80 acres is buying used tractors._
|
| You'd think, but you'd be surprised. In fact, one of the
| families I rent land from (aging couple who was looking
| to work less land) is still working around 50 of their
| acres themselves and they got a _couple_ of new tractors
| recently.
|
| _> They are likely hiring someone else with a combine to
| harvest their fields_
|
| They even combine the crop themselves! But, to be fair,
| the combine is pretty old (IH 1420).
| jancsika wrote:
| > On the other hand, if they were flying in a small airplane
| owned by one of them, it's illegal to split the costs of wear
| on the airplane, unless its a rental or air taxi.
|
| This isn't true:
|
| https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
|
| That AC and the regulations cited in it couldn't be clearer--
| if you and the pilot are _both_ going to $destination for
| $reasons, you and the pilot can definitely split the cost of
| the fuel.
|
| Moreover, this is perfectly analogous to the carpooling example
| as you stated it-- two people both having a stated purpose
| traveling to a destination, _both_ sharing the cost of gas
| /wear.
|
| There of course could be ways to carpool where the passengers
| pay the total cost of the driver's gas/wear/etc. You can't do
| that in your airplane. But again, I think the reasons for this
| are glaringly obvious-- keep silicon valley from attempting to
| create an unregulated taxi service in the sky. (In fact, IIRC
| there was someone who tried over a decade ago-- perhaps these
| laws are a response to that?)
|
| > Because of this, and other similar effects of FAA
| regulations, many small airplane owners own a company that owns
| the airplane, instead of owning it outright, and rent the
| airplane from themselves, whenever they use it.
|
| I mean, the pilots I know who do that are either a) multiple
| people owning a single plane, or b) single owner literally
| running a rental taxi service. Who isn't covered by those two
| categories?
| Cyberdogs7 wrote:
| The op clearly stated wear, not fuel. Hourly rates on a plane
| will have a maintenance reserve, from tens to hundreds of
| dollars per hour. This cost can not be shared by a pilot. If
| the plane is owned by an LLC, and rents the plane to the
| pilot at a rate that includes the maintenance reserve, the
| cost of the rental CAN be split. So by putting the plane in
| an LLC, you can legally recoup the true cost from your
| friends.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| _Most_ housing is not owned by tenants? That surprises me quite
| a bit. Would you supply a source for that?
| throwmeaway222 wrote:
| tenants by definition don't own it, he was building a false
| argument
| cco wrote:
| In the US, home ownership rates usually hover around 60%.
|
| So most homes are owned by the occupant. I suppose if you want
| to be pedantic and say mortgaged homes are owned by the bank,
| sure I guess?
|
| But I think homes should not be included in your list here.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > I suppose if you want to be pedantic and say mortgaged
| homes are owned by the bank
|
| Well, pedantically, you own the home, but the bank has a
| lien, and contractual rights in the event of default. But the
| title is in your name.
|
| Contrast to a vehicle, where the lender is the Legal Owner on
| registration docs, and retains title (in all but two states,
| I believe).
| toast0 wrote:
| I've seen vehicle registration documents with an owner and
| a lienholder. But the lienholder is also in possession of
| the title (which may be electronic). I see a few more than
| two states where the owner is in possession of the title,
| but I haven't lived in any of those.
|
| I think the difference is for real estate, title documents
| and liens are recorded, whereas for vehicles, titles are
| registered, and possession of the physical title is almost
| enough to change the registration; it makes sense for the
| lender to physically hold the title until the loan is
| satisfied, in order to prevent a sale without paying back
| the loan.
| mattgrice wrote:
| If structured the right way, agricultural land has numerous tax
| benefits that can range based on jurisdiction from carve-outs on
| inheritance taxes all the way down to property tax exemptions on
| what could not even be considered a hobby farm (very large
| exurban lots)
| trallnag wrote:
| In addition, government handouts. Also known as corporate
| welfare. Also known as subsidies.
| farceSpherule wrote:
| How about the US government stop subsidizing farmers? Let them
| fend for themselves like any other business.
| nemomarx wrote:
| If the price of food goes up, the public revolts. Not without a
| good reason honestly.
|
| I think you could definitely move the subsidies around, but
| subsidizing food is a basic good idea for any state really.
| danlitt wrote:
| Subsidising food is quite different from subsidising farmers.
| guyzero wrote:
| Exactly. Farmers vote.
| frankus wrote:
| The US government also has a program of subsidizing/mandating
| biofuels that raise prices of both food and fuel for supposed
| environmental and energy security reasons that mostly don't
| pass a sniff test.
| nemomarx wrote:
| Yeah, biofuels is more of a PR program. You could cut that
| one without any real harm, and you could definitely cut
| back on corn in general and promote some other stuff or
| move things around
| ebiester wrote:
| But if we had a famine, we could redirect that toward
| generating food for that year or three.
|
| No, I don't love biofuels either. but it's not entirely a
| bad idea.
| hibikir wrote:
| Europe also does some very heavy subsidies. Without subsidies,
| a lot of farming just goes away due to the uncompetitiveness in
| labor vs the southern hemisphere. The Amazon would be replaced
| completely with farms for rich countries. It's not surprising
| that countries just don't want so much of the country basically
| depopulating.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Good points.
|
| Need more legal immigration, and paying Brazil, etc. not to
| farm there. Better to do that than subsidize farmers.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Why is that better?
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| What are we trying to accomplish? I think:
|
| - Use arable land where it exists, not just where the
| cheapest labor is
|
| - Don't do deforestation or other such things
|
| I would like policies that directly address this:
|
| - Legal immigration fairly moves the people the arible
| land, rather than moving the farming to the cheap people.
| The goal would be in 200 years there is enough economic
| development and immigration that there is no longer
| global scale labor arbitrage.
|
| - Paying to protect the land we directly care about
| directly protects that land, and removes the incentive to
| farm there after all. (If you farm there, you loose the
| preservation rent.)
|
| Farmers in brazil are notoriously far-right-wing, just
| like else where, and so paying the gov to not farm has
| other return-to-center-and-sanity benefits too.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Besides keeping food costs low, as other commenters mentioned,
| I certainly think it's desirable to keep our agriculture sector
| from devolving into a small number of large corporations. I
| trust small independent farmers a lot more than I trust large
| corporations to take care of the land and to produce healthy
| food (which isn't to say independent farmers are perfect by any
| means).
| os2warpman wrote:
| Food isn't a ECON101 factory widget.
|
| Farm subsidies are both the single most important national
| security policy a nation can have, and an incredibly
| inexpensive yet extremely effective insurance policy.
| mewse-hn wrote:
| The Omnivore's Dilemma points out that the food economy
| doesn't even behave like the normal economy - supply is
| variable due to weather (bumper crop vs famine year) but
| demand is inelastic, people generally eat the same amount
| year-to-year. How do you grow your food business if people
| only eat so much? One method is to increase portion sizes.
| ebiester wrote:
| Avoiding starvation on a country level is a good goal of
| government, even if it isn't perfectly efficient. That can mean
| price floors and things that are not optimal for cars or toys.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Terrible idea. Food security is national security. I'm not in
| favor of leaving that up to chance.
| legitster wrote:
| > Eight states in the Corn Belt -- Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska,
| Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota and Wisconsin --
| restrict the size, structure and purpose of corporations that can
| own farmland to limit ownership by large investment funds.
|
| > More than 22% of the farmland in 12 Illinois counties with the
| highest rents is owned by a business entity, defined as an
| operation with an LLC, Inc, LTD, Co., Corp, LP or LLP tag.
| Sangamon and Edgar counties were included in this analysis
| because historical data was not needed.
|
| The TL;DR is that Illinois is one of the few states where there
| aren't restrictions on farmland owners, and even there it's a
| small (if growing) problem.
|
| I think this is one of those problems that should theoretically
| be self-limiting. The economics of a farming family owning their
| land is too strong - just from the amount of tax breaks and
| subsidies available. Put another way, the land in a farmer's
| hands is worth more than in a corporation's.
|
| I think the real risk comes from large farm landholders who want
| to cash out of their farm but don't have an heir or successor
| lined up. Farmers are getting old and their kids more often than
| not don't want to run the family farm anymore and there simply
| aren't going to be any other buyers.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| Selling the land that had been in the family for generations is
| what happened recently in my family. My dad (wealthy retired 80
| year old engineer) unfortunately decided he wanted the money,
| instead of keeping it in the family. It has been in our family
| 150 years. None of us are farmers in the current family, but we
| had relatives who were still renting the land in the area. They
| couldn't afford to buy the land either. So no farmers in the
| family today doesn't make it obviously something that we can
| keep - still I was disappointed with the outcome.
|
| We sold it to some outside group. Apparently the best way to
| sell land today is an online action. You announce it ahead of
| time, there is a minimal amount to start bidding, and then like
| an ad auction, there is a minimal increment to go up by, fixed
| time limit of like a week to bid.
|
| I was really sad that it left the family. The sale price of the
| midwest farm land ended up about $10k an acre for cropland. The
| amount of money that renting brought in didn't seem like it
| would be enough for any young person to actually buy land at
| current prices. I am sure they'd have a lot of tax deductions
| but can they get a million dollar loan? I expect there will be
| houses put on the land eventually. I had an idea for how to
| keep it suitable for future farmland, which was to put solar
| power on it with a 20 year contract with a local power company
| (with everything removed after).
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| How does a farmer who doesn't inherit land ever afford the
| land?
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| The modern way. You make a fortune in technology or finance,
| then buy yourself a vineyard to become a mediocre vintner!
| bluGill wrote:
| You start with a few acres - general poor land that can only
| grow livestock. You raise a few cows/hogs/... per year on the
| land but you go to work in the nearest town doing something
| else full time to live. In 5 years you have a reputation with
| the bank and some of the land paid down so you can buy
| another lot when it goes on sale thus expanding the farm -
| but you are still working full time somewhere else to get
| money. After 20 years of this eventually you build up enough
| that you can support yourself farming - much of the land is
| bought at yesterdays prices - but it will be many more years
| before you can make more than if you stayed working.
|
| Or you marry someone who will inherit land - this is often
| the best way in.
| xnx wrote:
| Farming is somehow still regarded as being some mom-and-pop
| heartland thing rather than the highly optimized manufacturing
| operation it has been for decades. Direct farm employment is now
| just 1.2% of the population. It was 40% in 1900. The special
| treatments farms and farmers get is an outdated relic kept alive
| by the electoral college.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Yes, cannot emphasize this enough. Farming is an industry, and
| we have take it seriously as one and stop romanticizing it.
|
| Of course, the irony is that now we romanticize industry too.
| GLdRH wrote:
| The workplace is becoming increasingly abstract. I wonder if
| there'll be a time when cubicles and spreadsheets become an
| object of nostalgia or romantization.
| roughly wrote:
| wait people used to have walls separating them from their
| neighbors? and, like, 40sq feet to themselves? what the
| fuck?
| franktankbank wrote:
| What's wrong with holding in esteem the things that truly
| underpin our security in this country?
| quantummagic wrote:
| The country wouldn't even exist without the electoral college.
| It was pivotal in uniting the states under a federal
| government, and is working as intended. Maybe the USA should be
| abandoned, and all ties between the states renegotiated, but
| you shouldn't be able to unilaterally change the terms of the
| deal.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It was necessary at the time yes, it's just drastically
| outlived its usefulness.
| quantummagic wrote:
| Useful to who? It's working exactly as intended. You
| shouldn't get to unilaterally change the terms of a
| contract. If both parties agree, then sure. But if not, you
| have to accept the good with the bad, it's a compromise.
| We've gotten a lot more out of the deal than it has ever
| cost.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| The electoral college was invented in part to increase
| the ability slave states at the founding of the country
| keep a certain amount of control -
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-
| slav....
|
| It set up the critical vulnerability that we have today,
| that in states where the votes are close at the state
| level, switching just a handful of votes completely moves
| the votes in the electoral college. This will be a
| continuing temptation, and a weakness of the us system.
| The 200 or 300k votes in swing states that had Biden
| beating Trump and then Trump beating Harris this time is
| not a great thing in democracy.
|
| So this vulnerability makes it a potential attraction to
| steal votes. There was the notorious recorded phone call
| when Trump called up the Secretary of State in Georgia
| and said he only needed 11,700 votes, please give them to
| him.
| quantummagic wrote:
| How does any of that change anything I've said?
|
| They explicitly negotiated the electoral college to
| protect their ability to not be overwhelmed by more
| populous states, and forever maintain their voice in the
| union. It is working exactly as intended, and is
| essentially a contract we are all a party to.
|
| We don't let one party unilaterally change other
| contracts, why should we here? It seems you'd have to be
| a very big hypocrite to support such a thing. You should
| honour the deal or find a way to renegotiate it that
| makes everyone happy, not just yourself.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| For one thing, the social contract among the states was
| already changed in the 1860s. We're no longer some loose
| confederation of independent states. The Feds are in
| charge, whether you like it or not, and the states are
| effectively administrative divisions, whether you like it
| or not. We literally fought a war about this and the
| "states' rights" people lost.
|
| For another, we're not bound to contracts between people
| who are long dead.
|
| For another, the constitution (little c, not the actual
| document) is not a literal contract. That's a methaphor.
|
| Finally: Why do you, as a person, want a system where
| land can vote? Or are you a parcel of land pretending to
| be a person?
| baseballdork wrote:
| > It's working exactly as intended.
|
| I think the founders would be pretty surprised to see the
| vast majority of electoral votes being determined all-or-
| nothing by the popular vote of the citizens of the state.
| If that was how they intended it to work, you might think
| they would've set it up that way in the first place.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Nope. I find it incredibly useful.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| The highly optimized manufacturing operation has made farming
| into a powerful tool of statecraft internationally. Other
| countries become dependent on our beans and corn to
| [indirectly] feed their people or for inputs for their own
| industries. That gives us diplomatic leverage.
|
| Once you start thinking about that, a lot of the mystery or
| 'inefficiency' of farming in the USA makes more sense. For
| example, the subsidies to grow corn and soy but not kale and
| squash or whatever was in the article- growing kale and squash
| isn't a strategic priority.
| teekert wrote:
| It's worth noting that this industrial scale is only possible
| with pesticides and herbicides that are very bad for insects
| and suspected hormone disruptors and carcinogens, etc.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| There is a lot of national security benefit to propping up the
| domestic agricultural industry. We've probably overstepped that
| line, but just "leave it to the free market" is a really bad
| option, too.
| Loughla wrote:
| People hammer subsidies for farms, but I'd rather not have
| one bad year cause food shortages the following year when we
| lose production from shuttered farms. The free market
| shouldn't control everything.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Subsidies are one thing, I just wish they weren't excluded
| from labor laws
| darth_avocado wrote:
| It's because it's still mom and pop because 72% of farms are
| still fully owned by people but they tend to be smaller in size
| and only account for 30% of the total farm land. And majority
| of farms are still under a 1000 acre size. The problem is that
| there are about 27000 farms that are hyper giants of 5000+
| acres which are the consolidated operations that account for a
| huge portion of the US farmland.
|
| Also, farming is mom and pop highly optimized operation. Those
| two don't need to be separate things. Once you understand that
| running a farm can be hundreds of thousands of dollars if not
| millions, you can understand the disconnect.
| jghn wrote:
| Unfortunately "the farmers" is simply a marketing gimmick along
| the lines of "the children". It is used to evoke a specific
| image and implied set of ideals. And because of that we have to
| deal with all kinds of crap legislation tied to it.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| This is a very online opinion. "The farmers" feed us. Very
| hard for me to think that's a marketing gimmick.
| jghn wrote:
| At the population scale in the US "The farmers" as in the
| stereotype of the rugged, individual American by and large
| does not. That's part of the point of this article.
|
| BigAg farms? You're absolutely right.
| recipe19 wrote:
| > an outdated relic kept alive by the electoral college.
|
| And yet, farmers are a vocal and critical political bloc in
| every other EU country, too.
|
| Farming is just _important_. Not as much because it employs a
| large portion of the population, but because it keeps a large
| portion of the population alive. It is the original industry
| that 's "too big to fail" - if you let it, you get famine.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Very well said. There is no alternative to having a
| successful farming industry.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| The special treatment of farmers is about food security. We
| generally trust farmers to keep delivering us food and we're
| willing to allow them a lot of special treatment because of
| that.
| jackcosgrove wrote:
| The headline is provocative, as some amount of corporate-owned
| farmland is owned by corporations that are in turn owned by
| farmers and their families.
|
| I would also push back on the notion that owner-operators are in
| a better position. It's more accurate to say that farmers who
| have assets of any kind are better off than those who don't have
| assets. As an example, generations back in my family we owned a
| lot of farmland. There were some bad investments made in the
| farming operation and we almost lost it all. This was in the
| early 1980s for those who are familiar.
|
| If my grandfather had sold all of his land and equipment in the
| late 1970s and invested it in the recently-started Vanguard
| group, rather than re-investing in the farming operation, then my
| family would be wealthy. Now expecting a farmer to know about
| index investing and to bet on it when it was just starting is
| unreasonable. But it's a good lesson in diversification.
|
| When people lionize farming owner-operators, they discount the
| risk that owner is taking by having so many assets concentrated
| in one operation. Now farmers do know about investing and
| diversification, and some do make the rational decision to cash
| out. Many also don't, for various reasons.
|
| But it's not totally fair to expect farmers to behave differently
| than other asset owners because farming is seen romantically or
| in terms of national security.
|
| This is a different argument than one which would decry the
| position of tenant farmers. Obviously being a tenant farmer
| owning nothing but equipment is harder than being a farmer who
| has $5 million invested somewhere else and rents the land he
| farms.
| jrockway wrote:
| Yeah. I think it's important to think about whether or not you
| want millions of dollars of assets tied up in land that you can
| farm. For example, I don't know how to farm, and I don't wish
| my 401(k) was land and structures... I am happy to have higher
| exposure to the wider economy.
|
| Obviously there are recessions and having your own vegetable
| farm and place to live is nice... but most of the time there
| isn't a cataclysmic recession, so you're leaving money on the
| table. Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to have a bad year farming.
| Weather. Pests. Having a lot of assets doesn't help you when
| they're not liquid and plants won't grow for a year.
| petcat wrote:
| This is such a contrast to upstate NY where farmland is still
| overwhelmingly owned by individuals and families. It was nearly
| 75% the last time I checked. And 70% is owner-operator (the owner
| is also the farmer). Only a very tiny percentage of active
| farmland is owned by an investment company.
| pfdietz wrote:
| A report on NY farms and farmland, covering the 2012-2022
| period.
|
| https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/profile-of-agricult...
|
| It's interesting how little of NY state is farmland (21.6%).
|
| "When the extended family of the farmer is taken into
| consideration, 94.6 percent of New York farms are family-
| owned."
| petcat wrote:
| New York state has gone to great lengths over the last 40
| years to highly incentivize (read: subsidize) local, family
| farmers and deter megacorp speculators and investors.
|
| At this point I think it's basically impossible to actually
| _lose_ money on a farm as long as it 's family/individual
| owner-operator.
|
| It's also why NY state cropland is among the most expensive
| in the country. Once you get it, the value will only ever go
| up regardless of crop yield in any given year.
| arbor_day wrote:
| I own the farm and farm it in Illinois. I owe the land through an
| LLC, because farming is dangerous and I don't want to go bankrupt
| if somebody sues me. Farms are expensive and hard to subdivide,
| so people will put them into a legal entity and pass down to the
| next generation via a trust. All of my neighbors are doing the
| same, so we're all counted as "not farmers" here
|
| Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe worth
| $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit -- not
| even better than holding t-bills. The margins get better as you
| get bigger but still not great.
|
| Many of the buyers keep growing their farms because it's a status
| symbol. Everybody in your area will instantly know you're a big
| wig if you're one of the X family who has 2,000 acres all without
| the ick that comes with running other businesses. You can't buy
| that kind of status in my community with anything other than
| land.
| mbreese wrote:
| It's buried in a figure legend, but the Tribune does
| acknowledge this too:
|
| _> Note: The 12 selected counties had some of the highest cash
| rents in the state. For the purposes of this analysis, a
| business entity was defined as an organization with an LLC,
| Inc, LTD, Co, Corp, LP or LLP tag. This land is not necessarily
| owned by large conglomerates and investment firms. Corporate
| structures are also attractive vehicles for family businesses._
|
| Edit: apparently not that buried...
| spyspy wrote:
| It's not buried anywhere, it's literally the next paragraph
| after the lede.
|
| > These acres are not necessarily owned by large
| conglomerates and investment firms. Corporate structures are
| also attractive vehicles for family businesses because they
| offer tax benefits and externalize losses.
| mbreese wrote:
| So it is... Chalk that up to my science reading skills -- I
| skimmed the text and skipped quickly to the charts,
| figures, and legends...
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| This is a use case where I think a current LLM shines.
| Ask it to summarize the important points of n papers, and
| slow read only the ones that pique your interest. It
| won't be perfect, but it will save you a ton of time
| while letting you focus on the things that need more
| attention.
| freeopinion wrote:
| I'm not anti-LLM even if the following statement sounds
| like it.
|
| I don't trust LLMs, even to summarize for me. I have to
| fact-check every single statement. For instance, if I ask
| ChatGPT, "Is PLA more dense than ABS?" it answers, "No,
| PLA is not more dense than ABS." Those are direct quotes.
| In the third paragraph, ChatGPT says, "So technically,
| PLA is denser than ABS, not less -- I misspoke earlier."
|
| I find LLMs good for using words that I didn't think of.
| I can then reword a search to get better search results.
|
| To be fair, the cherry-picked example I used above sounds
| a lot like a human. Humans make such mistakes and
| corrections. If a human had given me that response, I
| would shrug and ask more questions. But it would make
| that human not be my go to source.
|
| It makes me shudder to think about code that is written
| in such a manner.
| tialaramex wrote:
| > It makes me shudder to think about code that is written
| in such a manner.
|
| Often it has the property which was good enough for
| generations of C and C++ programmers, it compiles. Does
| it work? Eh. Do the tests, if there even are tests, check
| anything useful? Eh.
|
| The focus on "it doesn't matter so long as it compiles"
| justifies everything up to IFNDR+, the explicit choice in
| C++ that if what you've written is nonsense but it would
| not be easy to modify the compiler to notice, just don't
| worry about it and say it's somebody else's problem.
|
| + "Ill-formed, No Diagnostic Required" these words or
| near equivalent occur frequently in the ISO definition of
| the language.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| > Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe
| worth $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit --
| not even better than holding t-bills.
|
| Non-judgmental curious question: why do you keep doing it? (As
| opposed to selling the land and buying tbills.)
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| > the ick that comes with running other businesses
|
| Also non-judgmental curious question: what is this "ick"
| related to non-farming businesses?
| fundad wrote:
| I think it's the way the original poster looks down people
| running other businesses.
| 9rx wrote:
| I own both a farm business and non-farm business. I feel
| the "ick" he talks about.
|
| I don't know how to exactly describe it, but I'd suggest it
| has to do with more autonomy in non-farming businesses,
| where you are always trying to balance between trying to
| make the business work and not taking advantage of people.
| Or if you end up taking advantage of people...
|
| In farming, it is all laid out for you. Prices are already
| set in Chicago. The buyer is always there. You grow the
| product, deliver it, and that's that. These days, with the
| way technology has gone, you might not even interact with
| another person in the process.
| arbor_day wrote:
| There's something righteous in farming where it's really
| hard to feel like you're doing wrong even if you're getting
| rich -- you are just feeding people. It's like being a
| doctor.
| jckahn wrote:
| I imagine there's some satisfaction in feeding people that
| money can't buy.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| There's an exceedingly strong cultural drive to keep
| farmland "in the family" even if it impoverishes or
| otherwise inconveniences the descendants.
|
| I had a coworker once who lives in this region and owns
| some amount of farmland in a similar situation. He could
| have sold it and moved his family to <insert modest
| paradise here, in his case Florida> at any point; even now
| I think it would be easily done, if not as easy as in the
| past. But of course he still lives there, immiserating
| himself to keep the farm barely viable and working a second
| job to provide a livable salary.
|
| Why? Because selling it would offend his dead father's
| pride.
| threatofrain wrote:
| I know someone in a similar position. Had a spirit more
| meant for tech, pursued it, but has to keep thinking
| about what to do about the family farm business. I think
| it's the same for any kind of family business, there's a
| sense of failure if you're the generation to close it
| down.
| bombcar wrote:
| There's opportunities for the right person out there,
| I've seen it a few times - young man (or woman) who wants
| to run a farm or rural business or whatnot, either
| marries into the family or becomes "basically adopted"
| and inherits the business or farm.
|
| You have tons of businesses that are viable (produce
| enough money to support a family) as long as you never
| load it with debt; because they do NOT produce enough to
| support a family and the debt load that would come from
| buying it.
|
| So they're unsaleable.
| gopher_space wrote:
| > You have tons of businesses that are viable (produce
| enough money to support a family) as long as you never
| load it with debt; because they do NOT produce enough to
| support a family and the debt load that would come from
| buying it.
|
| I've been thinking about this situation as "the bakery
| trap". The labor dimension here is that the best possible
| career move for the person you've spent the past n years
| training is to immediately leave once they've mastered
| your hot-cross bun recipe.
| bombcar wrote:
| "The E-Myth" books talk about this (which is the worst
| name ever because the E is Entrepreneur not E as in email
| or emachines lol) - many small businesses are NOT small
| businesses, they're a job you own, and you can't sell a
| job.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I used to date a woman in Germany who was trying to shake
| her farm roots for corporate aspirations. I didn't
| understand German that well but apparently other Germans
| could tell her accent. No different than someone from
| Appalachia being assumed to be uneducated, and how we
| debate the validity of poor English versus "dialect". It
| seemed like an unnecessary distraction to her life.
|
| Eventually I met the father, and he was big into the farm
| life. running a small but industrial farm. I still didn't
| understand, he mentioned a love of feeding people, why is
| he doing this and why is he putting his family through
| this, my girlfriend was translating the things he said
| but I didn't get it, so I assumed language barrier. They
| did seem to be respected in the town though by all the
| shopkeepers. But given the options, they were quite
| liquid and wealthy, it seemed contrived.
|
| Then I met the grandfather, now, I liked that guy. The
| grandfather had a diversified portfolio, golf ranges,
| restaurants, farms, different siblings and children
| running them all. There was no "I just love feeding
| people" bullshit, just revenue streams and property. The
| farmer son just got the short straw and had to adopt that
| persona.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| Yeah, that rings true. I assumed when asking my question
| that this was something to do with culture, identity, and
| social status within a particular community. In this case
| the culture (rural America) is alien to me. But I can
| understand the idea of making economically "irrational"
| choices for reasons to do with pride or culture or
| identity, though in the world I grew up in it's more
| things like become a classical musician, environmental
| scientist, or spend 6 years doing a humanities PhD. On
| the other hand, none of those things involve the
| allocation of $5M of capital, so there does seem to be
| something different about this kind of life choice.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Land can be financed over long periods and held forever. So a
| few hundred grand will pay off $5 million in about 20 years
| and then that's steady income forever after (as long as you
| keep farming).
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Land can't be financed, businesses can be financed.
| Businesses that own land are much more easily financed,
| with the lowest interest rates.
|
| When you buy land to develop, you have to pony up cash for
| it. I have never heard of a lender lending without a cash
| flow producing asset as collateral.
| dismalaf wrote:
| You've got it backwards. Hard assets like land, buildings
| (aka. your house), machinery (a tractor or your car) are
| all much easier to finance than businesses. A simple
| Google search gives a wealth of resources for someone
| looking to finance (aka. mortgage) land and/or property
| for a farm.
|
| https://www.farmcreditil.com/Products/farm-loans
|
| There's even government grants and loans to help:
|
| https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/farm-loan-
| programs/farm-o...
|
| Edit - we're on HN. If you'd ever tried to get a business
| loan you'd know it's near impossible for a new business
| without 100% collateral, which is why the entire venture
| capital business, and HN, even exists...
| rob wrote:
| > Land can't be financed
|
| Doesn't seem accurate. See:
|
| https://agamerica.com/land-loans/real-estate-loans/
|
| https://www.farmcrediteast.com/en/FINANCING/Land-Loans
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is factually inaccurate. The land is the collateral.
| If you don't service the debt, they take back the land.
| 75-85% loan to value, 2-4% interest over treasury rates.
| Underwriting guidelines for the loan will differ if this
| is for speculation, development into housing, or
| agriculture.
| jldugger wrote:
| Okay, but as mentioned, 5 million also buys 20 year
| treasuries that yield 4.90%, or about 245k a year. I
| probably wouldn't buy them on margin tho.
| beambot wrote:
| > that's steady income forever after
|
| Let me tell you about farming... this isn't true.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Land does weather inflation quite a bit better than T bills do,
| though.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Some land does. A lot of land does not.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| I think this is strictly not a true statement?
|
| Land value can decrease in real terms at the same time
| inflation is happening, sure. But it isn't revalued by
| inflation in the way that a contract denominated in the
| inflationary currency is.
|
| Can you explain more about what you mean?
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Agricultural land you can cultivate certainly does,
| particularly irrigated land.
|
| Land in the desert with zero economic value (think Slab
| City) probably does not keep up with inflation.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe
| worth $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit_
|
| Well, it is ultimately a real estate business. The "hundred
| grand" in profit is really there only to support the mortgage
| payments -- meaning that's what other farmers are counting on,
| so they're going to drive the prices down to that point. It is
| like a tech startup. You are counting on the assets increasing
| in value when you exit. That is where the profit will
| eventually come from, _hopefully_. It is not a business for
| everyone, but I like it.
|
| _> Many of the buyers keep growing their farms because it 's a
| status symbol._
|
| And because the fun parts of the job end too quickly when you
| don't have enough acres. I'd at least like to double my
| acreage. That is where I think I'd no longer be in a position
| of "That's it? I want to keep going!" and instead "That was
| fun, but I think I've had enough."
|
| That said, the machines keeps getting bigger, whether the
| farmer likes it or not, so perhaps in that future I'll need
| even more land to satisfy the pangs.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you don't need a couple of million dollars worth of
| tractors, combines, and other equipment that all driven by
| GPS then you don't have enough acres.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > all without the ick that comes with running other businesses
|
| can you elaborate on this perception?
| Loughla wrote:
| As a farmer my customer is the grain elevator, co-op, or sale
| barn. I don't have to hustle for sales, just play the market.
|
| At least when I still farmed that's what it was. I answered
| to myself, not to customers or clients.
| travisennis wrote:
| I was just looking at a GIS map yesterday for my area and
| noticed that nearly every field was owned by an LLC and/or
| trust. Didn't think much of it at the time until I read this.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In richer parts of town, many houses will be in trusts also.
|
| It's a no brainer if you have a couple thousand dollars to
| spare for an estate lawyer to do some estate planning and
| spare your heirs probate court.
|
| Plus in the states and wealth levels that many people on this
| website have, it is also a no brainer to save on taxes.
| toast0 wrote:
| > It's a no brainer if you have a couple thousand dollars
| to spare for an estate lawyer to do some estate planning
| and spare your heirs probate court.
|
| What I keep hearing from experienced estate attorneys is
| that California probate court is onerous and worth a lot of
| effort to avoid, but other state's have reasonable probate;
| it might still be worth it to avoid probate, but it's not
| such a big deal. OTOH, dealing with assets in a revocable
| trust can be a PITA while you're still alive and may not
| give much benefit while you're living either. If you're not
| in California, it's worth taking stock of the situation
| before you use California biased advice.
|
| Having an estate in trust may not actually save on taxes
| either. Yes, you'll avoid probate fees in California, which
| is significant. But your estate will still pay estate tax.
| Otherwise, if an irrevocable trust holds the assets, it
| pays the taxes, and trusts have very abbreviated brackets;
| your heirs might well pay less income tax holding the
| property themselves.
|
| When your heirs/beneficiaries die and their heirs become
| the new beneficiary, that's not subject to estate tax,
| which is great, but as a result it doesn't get a step up in
| basis. If the trust is large relative to the estate tax
| exemption, it's beneficial to not pay estate tax; if not,
| it's more beneficial to get a step up in basis.
|
| Certainly, in some situations, trusts _are_ more tax
| efficient, but you have to actually look at your situation
| to see. Default everyone should have a trust assumptions
| add a lot of senseless confusion and delay to the people
| who don 't actually get a benefit from it. There are asset
| protection benefits from trusts as well, and it's
| reasonable to consider those depending on the situation as
| well.
|
| Holding a farm in a trust or llc makes a lot of sense to
| me, because it makes it easier to split ownership without
| dividing the farm.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| "...but your estate will still pay estate taxes."
|
| IANAL but to be clear, I'm pretty sure that CA does not
| have an estate tax. And the federal estate tax limit was
| just reaffirmed (BBB) at the prior threshold.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| A lot of words to tell you that you should consult an
| estate attorney in your jurisdiction, but at least that
| advice was correct.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yep I own one rental house and it's in an LLC. Very common for
| any property used as a business to have a business owner of
| record.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Yeah, I think it would have been more useful if the Tribune had
| been able to determine "how many people are farming on land
| which they do not own" whether directly or through an
| LLC/company.
|
| The amount of land owned by "out of state" owners may help
| answer this question but they don't give a number for that
| either. (A local farmer could also register their LLC out of
| state though I'm not sure whether that's beneficial or not.)
| umanwizard wrote:
| > Less than a fourth of Illinois farmland is owned by the farmer
| who works the land
|
| Isn't this the historical norm? Anyway, we don't live in a
| communist utopia, so most people don't own their workplace,
| farmers or not.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Is this different from factories not being owned by the assembly
| line workers? Not saying it is right or wrong but I wonder why
| farming is treated differently. Even for me, seeing this headline
| makes me feel bad for farming and the idyllic view I have of it.
| thescriptkiddie wrote:
| in the long view, much of the US's economic success (prior to the
| post-wwii economic miracle) can be attributed directly or
| indirectly to cheap and plentiful food. this of course means that
| farming is not a very profitable business. but that could change
| if a handful of large corporations buy up a plurality of the
| farms and exert their monopoly power to push prices up. this
| would be very bad.
| nkmnz wrote:
| Most F1 pilots do not own the cars, the race tracks, or even the
| suits they're wearing while driving. Neither do they own the F1
| organization, the F1 brand or any of the technology involved.
| rjpower9000 wrote:
| _Part of the land -- 120 of the nearly 700 acres -- is rented
| from a family who owns multiple farm properties and wants their
| fields weed-free with perfectly straight grids of crops, a deep-
| rooted tradition among Midwestern farming communities._
|
| _"They want that land to be clean corn and soybeans," Bishop
| said. Before the restrictions, his father was growing organic
| corn and soybeans on part of the field and letting Bishop grow
| vegetables on the rest._
|
| I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, but the idea that you'd force
| someone else to create a mono-crop desert, not even out of a
| sense of efficiency, but _just because it looks right_, is just
| so frustrating.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > In the same 20-year window, farmland owned by businesses with
| out-of-state mailing addresses increased by nearly 250%.
|
| they should have noted _what percentage_ of farmland is owned by
| out-of-state businesses; otherwise the 250% increase isn't
| meaningful
| StillBored wrote:
| The US needs another Orville Freeman, someone who understands the
| intricacies of both economics and food production. Pretty much
| no-one in a position to affect subsidies and the legal system has
| a clue. And this isn't unique to the USA, watching Clarson's Farm
| is a prime example of a bunch of know-nothing politicians
| screwing things up. Which is how for example in TX, half of the
| rural community is getting AG exemptions on their property taxes,
| while not actually producing anything other than tax dodges.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orville_Freeman
| https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publica...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-30 23:00 UTC)