Hacker News Reader

Comment by TulliusCicero | Hacker News Reader

Duh. Do these people just forget about the principle of economies of scale? How do they think they can possibly compete against huge factory farms? I can understand if you're doing a small farm 'for fun', but don't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can think they can (or should be able to) make good money from it.

> As the average age of the American farmer neared 65, I knew young farmers were badly needed in this country.

If they're truly in demand, one would expect wages or profits to signal that.

> none of these things address the policies that dictate how our country’s food system works, policies that have created a society in which the small farmer can’t even earn a living.

Some of the policies might not help, but the fundamental reason small farms can't compete is that farming has large economies of scale. Some people may be able to find a niche charging high prices for uncommon goods, but that's never going to be the bulk of the industry. Expecting small farms to be profitable in that way is like expecting cobblers to make a comeback.

View on HN

> How do they think they can possibly compete against huge factory farms?

As with so many of these things, there's this idea floating around that the factory farms must be "bad" because they are big and wealthy, and that smaller, less efficient farms must be "good" because they are small and poor. Much like with all the other cases, this idea is somewhere between confused and blatant denial of reality.

Money is the unit of caring. The amount of money that you're willing to spend on something is how much you care about having it, as precisely defined by the point at which it's too expensive and you don't care enough to pay that much. The factory farms are big and wealthy because they provide what people care about: an efficiently produced, consistent solution to the problem of what to have for dinner.

If people really cared about their food coming from small, inefficient, "organic" farms then they would pay for what it really costs to produce food in that manner. The fact that people aren't willing to pay for it tells us that they don't actually care as much as they claimed. This is normal: most people will tell you they care deeply about something up until the point when you ask them to open their wallet, and then they remember that they don't care all that much.

It seems to me that what's really wanted here is better factory farms with modest adjustments to reduce pollution, antibiotics use, and improve animal welfare. That's entirely achievable. It won't be achieved by things like this article; it'll be achieved by somebody who sets out to make a better factory farm and builds a business around that.

This is already happening. http://spread.co.jp/en/ plan to have what could be a game-changing approach to vegetable farming up and running in 2017. Whoever gets that system to work well enough at scale seems likely to sweep the 1990s-style farms off the map. It's the exact opposite direction from what the "organic" farmers have been doing: no low-wage labour, no battles over land, no getting caught up in politics.

The next couple of years will be an interesting time for the food markets.

>If people really cared about their food coming from small, inefficient, "organic" farms then they would pay for what it really costs to produce food in that manner. The fact that people aren't willing to pay for it tells us that they don't actually care as much as they claimed. This is normal: most people will tell you they care deeply about something up until the point when you ask them to open their wallet, and then they remember that they don't care all that much.

That's something I felt was missing from the article: No talk about their pricing. People pay (or not pay) the price they are asked to pay, not the price the thing costs to make (and have no idea how high that is).

Probably doesn't compare to the typical software-freelancer stories of "You should try to charge more than you think, clients pay that!", but it still would be interesting.

Logically speaking either this is bullshit or everybody who has ever said that they are struggling to give up smoking is lying.

I believe you are making the common mistake of confusing what people really want (the desires they act on), and what they say they want. What people say they want is usually "the thing that they want to want" - it's a bit meta. You can call that "lying" if it makes you feel better, but pretty close to everybody does it.

>I believe you are making the common mistake of confusing what people really want (the desires they act on), and what they say they want.

In other words drug addicts really want to be addicts. Otherwise they would have given up already.

I suppose it's a useful canard if you're trying to justify American pro-corporate agricultural policy.

> In other words drug addicts really want to be addicts.

That is a reasonably accurate definition of the word "addiction", yes. When they no longer want the drug, then they are not addicted to it any more (this is a good example of how hard it can be to really change your desires).

You appear to have some unstated objection to the notion that a dysfunctional desire is still a desire. I don't think this conversation can make any meaningful progress if you continue to avoid stating it.

> The fact that people aren't willing to pay for it tells us that they don't actually care as much as they claimed.

Or that they don't know. Supermarkets don't usually label their vegetables "BigCo" and "littleco". The problem with the 'market solves everything' approach is that it requires perfect knowledge on behalf of all parties.

Large agricultural companies lobby the most to remove food labelling laws.

IIRC they just got rid of the necessity to put country of origin on food.

This is something I've often thought about with regard to organic farming.

A claim is often made that modern agriculture and growing methods can decouple food's nutrition from traditional signals of nutrition like size and colour and blemishes. I don't know how true that is, but it seems like there's a branding failure here - that we somehow need to be able to select fruit and vegetables based on which specific producers made them rather than vague and inherently porous regulations governing what can be called 'organic' or 'natural'.

Supermarkets might not like that - they'd have to better manage sales space to accommodate multiple known 'brands' of apples or oranges, but consumers would have a lot more reason to 'trust' self-interested brands of farms than they would an 'organic' commodity label. Any kind of a label that doesn't involve individual self-interested reputation but instead involves regulatory compliance is going to be gamed and ultimately ignored.

Thank you, sir, for the awesome comment!

I think the danger in our agricultural policy is that large farms are favored (through subsidies, tax breaks, regulation, etc.) to an extent that small farms can't exist profitably, even charging higher prices at market. While there is a minimum viable farm size (given the need for modern machinery to automate the process), most likely, it probably isn't nearly as large as what our current set of incentives enforces. And, historically, there were farming coops that made it possible for communities of farmers to share expenses for those tools (and some states and communities still have legal infrastructure and such to enable those kinds of organizations), but federal policy and mega-store purchasing policy makes it a moot point.

There's a lot more to the story of what our agricultural system looks like, and this article only touches on it from one personal, anecdotal, perspective, but it's simplistic to dismiss this perspective and the concerns it raises about our food supply. Michael Pollan has been writing compellingly on the subject for many years, and I recommend you check out The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food. They provide a well-research view of why things are so skewed in our food system, and why that is dangerous to our current and future health.

"If they're truly in demand, one would expect wages or profits to signal that."

On that point, we're agreed...there has to be a way to correct the incentives so that a competitive agriculture market can exist, given the fact that we all need to eat, and ethically speaking, it'd be good if the most affordable foods were among the most healthy and least damaging to the environment. That's not the way things are incentivized currently. As it stands, there's a strong cartel of very large farms and animal agriculture companies that stack the deck in their favor. It isn't merely a story of efficiency of scale, it also includes lobbying, anti-competitive practices, etc.

"large farms are favored (through subsidies, tax breaks, regulation, etc.)"

Can you share any examples of these things that specifically favour large farms? The two books you mention seem to be focused mainly on different issues (corn subsidies, large scale feeding, food labelling, ethics, ...).

The subsidies obviously don't specifically say, "big farms get this benefit, fuck the little guy!".

It takes the form of favoring monoculture farms (where economies of scale are more pronounced, but also the environmental impact is largest), or requiring significant compliance expenses and bookkeeping that smaller farms cannot handle (because the cost of bureaucracy is often fixed, so it is relatively higher the smaller the farm), or have been designed to favor farms in specific regions (where the majority of farmable land is already owned by a few large farm corporations).

This is one of the better sourced articles on the subject I could find in a quick googling (interestingly, it comes from a libertarian think tank, which makes them interesting bed fellows with the food justice and local farms movement): http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Here's one from another, more left-leaning, source (but with almost no references, just opinion): http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-agr...

The Michael Pollan books (specifically, The Omnivores Dilemma) do actually cover this in some detail, as well, and with good references, though it is a small part of the book.

I'm surprised so many people on HN think it is even a little controversial to suggest that large farms are favored by current regulation, enough that several people are requesting references. I kinda thought it was widely known. So, that's an interesting bit of news for me.

Can you provide sources for the claim that government support for farming is inaccessible due to bookkeeping and compliance expense? I'm a local food person (for reasons other than "food justice") and an investor of sorts, and nobody in this field in Chicago has ever told me that before.

I read the first link you provided carefully, and it doesn't appear to discuss compliance costs at all, and further refers to cotton farming, not food supply.

Can we just stipulate that commodity crops are indeed locked up structurally for giant agribusiness cartels, and keep focused on the small family vegetable and livestock farming this Salon article is talking about? I feel unprepared to discuss the public policy implications of wheat and cotton farming.

"Can we just stipulate that commodity crops are indeed locked up structurally for giant agribusiness cartels"

Certainly. I think I've been making that argument all along. And, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that being a problem (I think it probably is, if that wasn't clear).

"and keep focused on the small family vegetable and livestock farming this Salon article is talking about?"

So, we should exclude everything that supports the notion that big agribusiness has significant anti-competitive advantages, and only talk about the miniscule segment of the market that has not yet been eaten by big agribusiness and still has a few small farmers able to scratch out an existence?

Also, I'm not arguing that the author of this article should expect to make a great living off of a 10 acre farm. Obviously, that's silly (though I know people who do think that a small farm on that scale can be some sort of sustainable existence, and this article is probably useful for them from the perspective of bringing a little reality to the fantasy of retiring on a little farm).

I don't know what I think about commodity agriculture and consolidation. We don't have to agree to disagree about it.

But I think many readers would have an intuitive sense that if you're going to try to go into business selling products whose prices are set not by local buyers like restaurants but rather giant exchanges --- and for commodity crops, that's been the case for much of the last century! --- you're going to need all the economies of scale you can get, because your only axis of competition in those markets is "price".

It's for similar reasons that we tend not to be as concerned with the plight of small family oil well operators.

This article isn't lamenting the fate of small family cotton farmers, or even small alfalfa farmers. They're outraged that it's impossible for small vegetable farmers to make a living.

What moved me to comment is that I think they're wrong about that, and, in the fashion of many Salon-featured essays, are substituting the experiences of "mid-20s-to-early-30s" dilettantes for those of family farmers for whom this is a life-defining vocation.

This article doesn't claim that large farms are subsidized disproportionately, which is the claim you made when you said,

Are you claiming that large farms are being subsidized non-linearly? I.e. out of proportion with their size and output? That is certainly not the claim that's being made by that Cato article, and its not born out by the USDA page that the Cato article links to.

Agriculture is subsidized - I think that much is well known. Perhaps I wasn't clear - I was asking for sources that would indicate that subsidies favour large farms. In many other places around the world, like in Europe, agricultural subsidies are perceived as helping to protect small farms.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Crop-subsidies-found-...

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/08/kernel-watch-9-farm-subsidy...

I read the sfgate article that you posted, and I don't think that is says what you think it does:

Most California farmers, who grow mainly fruits and vegetables, do not get direct subsidies from the Depression-era programs, which remain largely targeted at grains, cotton, dairy and a handful of smaller crops.

In fact, these subsidies are handed out based on land area, and seem to have a penalty against large farms which operators have been circumventing by legally subdividing their farms to collect more.

Anyways, I think we can agree that these subsidies aren't relevant to the farmers in the article, who have chosen not to grow grains and other subsidized crops and are not in competition with these large farms.

I don't think that small-scale farming can regain its position of a significant contributor to the food production. And even if it could, I'm not sure that it should.

Food production scales up nicely, and it has many other potential benefits than just being cheaper. Say we fixed incentives that promote low-quality food (we have to do it either way, since small farmers are as much incentivized to sell crap as big ones; a big part of "organic food" industry seems to be about that). The big AgriCorp, if incentivized to make good food, can actually care about it better. They have more money to get top-of-the-line tools, or build their own. They can use them more efficiently. They have enough resources to monitor and control the farm in much greater detail. They have more expertise on hands. Am I seriously supposed to trust a Joe Random Farmer more than a professional biotechnologist or agriculturist from Monsanto or DuPont? If so, why bother with this whole thing called "science" at all?

It seems to me that the work needed to restore the quality of our food makes big farms an even better option than they're now. The issues are, ultimately, with economic incentives that promote everything but health aspects of food.

Why do you assume a random DuPont agriculturalist, who pushes papers all day, understands food better than a professional farmer our their in the empirical field?

Back in the real world, BigCo agriculturalists also go out into the literal field. I used to work for a company that did agricultural telemetry, and our clients were big and small, and our BigCo contacts were frequently contacting us from somewhere other than an airconditioned office.

Why do you assume that professional farmers out in their empirical fields aren't intensively trained in much the same manner as the employees of Dupont? People get degrees in agriculture.

through subsidies, tax breaks, regulation, etc

I'm genuinely curious whether this is actually the case. Can you cite some examples? My google-skills don't seem to be adequate.

google: 'sugar subsidies''corn subsidies''milk subsidies'

In particular, sugar should be taxed like tobacco, with a sin tax, rather than subsidized. But that's not what we do.

Why should sugar be taxed? Why not just eliminate sin taxes altogether? You people that want to tax everything that you feel isn't "good" is just obnoxious. There's something called freedom. Ridiculous nanny state proponents that want to use taxes to discourage behaviors that they consider 'bad' yet like to consider themselves 'pro choice' or interested in 'diversity.' --except when they disagree with those choices.

Everything should either be taxed equally or by at all. The American system is about protecting people's rights and protecting freedom. The Founders never had any intent to become the parents of the American people. I sure as heck don't appreciate Washington, DC telling me how I should live my life, including dictating a diet using taxation as a tool. It's nobody's business what I eat.

> Everything should either be taxed equally or by at all.

So cigarettes and alcohol should be taxed equally with baby formula ?

Well, to be fair, having kids does have a negative impact on the environment, and some studies indicate that having children makes people unhappy, so maybe it should be discouraged via taxation.

(I'm joking. I think.)

Yes. They absolutely should.

Once you start playing these games with the tax code, you end up with the laughable system we have now that only benefits tax accountants and politicians.

> There's something called freedom.

There's also something called short-sightedness, which involves people exercising their freedom to predictably do stupid things to themselves and those around them. There's also this concept of "coordination problems", which explains how people choosing out of self-interest what looks like the best for them, when aggregated, end up creating misery for everyone, including themselves.

Then finally there's this realization that life is a PvP game, not PvE. There are countless of professionals who earn their living by convincing you to exercise your freedom in a way that hurts you. Many have near-infinite budgets and apply state-of-the-art technology and research into psychology and neuroscience to achieve their malicious goals. (Surprisingly, this is not only legal, but also considered a respectable career path.)

Given all that, it's naïve to expect that a civilization, especially as complex as ours, will run itself well if you just leave everyone to do anything and everything they want.

I'm not saying that sugar tax in particular is a good idea. But there are many benefits in taxing specific things, and we're all better off because of them.

The problem is that the people making the decision on what to tax don't always have agendas that are altruistic. Elected officials can't be trusted to decide what's 'right' for me to consume or not to consume. Remember, these are the same elected officials that marijuana illegal yet make being fat a 'disability.'

The government has no business telling me what to eat. If it costs 'society' more, then charge people for the actual cost at the time the cost is incurred. Sugar isn't 'bad' any more than alcohol is 'bad.' However if you drink so much that it causes liver failure, then charge people for the liver failure.. Don't spread that cost among the responsible people who don't drink to excess. Higher insurance rates for gay people and alcoholics -- absolutely. Higher prices for alcohol to effectively punish everyone for the irresponsible actions of the few.. Completely anti-freedom.

> The problem is that the people making the decision on what to tax don't always have agendas that are altruistic. Elected officials can't be trusted to decide what's 'right' for me to consume or not to consume.

I agree that their agendas are often problematic, but then again people can't exactly be trusted to decide what's good for them either. Regulating food may be too much, but check out things like e.g. vaccines, effectiveness of which depends on everyone who can taking them, whether they like it or not. For the most prominent examples of people who absolutely should not be let to decide what they can or cannot do, see drivers. The flippant attitude to traffic laws is what causes lots of unnecessary deaths and injuries, as well as economic losses in unnecessary traffic jams.

> If it costs 'society' more, then charge people for the actual cost at the time the cost is incurred.

It's complicated. Sometimes charging at the point of purchase is exactly the right way. For instance, taxing fuel is a good idea, because it's directly related to the environmental damage it causes. A CO₂ emission tax would be a great way to internalize the cost of externalities, have the price reflect the true costs for everyone.

Other times, it may be a choice between what's "most free" and what's most effective. You're right that as a responsible person you should not be punished for irresponsible actions of the few. It seems fair to put the cost of e.g. alcoholism on the people who actually suffer from it. But I'd argue that in practice, it's too late. The goal should not be to wait for the irresponsible people to get in trouble, but to prevent them from it in the first place. Prevention is more effective than a cure; not to mention that there's no point in charging an alcoholic extra for treating liver failure - they won't be able to pay it anyway.

By the way, how is the society supposed to know that you are the responsible person and you won't become an alcoholic? It can't. Some people become alcoholics every year and others don't, but we can't tell beforehand who will be in which group. So the simple approach will be probabilistic - assuming that everyone has the expected-number-of-alcoholics/total-alcohol-consumers probability of becoming one, and taxing this fraction of the costs out of everyone. Where to best put that tax? On alcohol purchase directly; that way you fairly exclude people who don't drink at all, and thus will never cause costs to other people because of an alcohol problem. Could we make it "more fair"? Probably, by means of making it more complicated. But complicated means overhead and inefficiency, which is something you want to limit too.

Finally, I disagree with the idea that the government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do. I get that it has to be limited as much as possible for citizens to be happy, but in the end, bossing people around is the sole and only reason we have a government. It's their raison d'être. Solving coordination problems and seeking globally optimal outcomes involves infringing on peoples' individual freedoms - or to turn it around, living in a society involves giving up some of individual freedoms. It's the so-called social contract.

Oh you can still eat sugar, that's your freedom. But freedom!=no additional cost. Ultimately we all have a monetary stake in everyone's health, so it's completely reasonable to establish offsets for demonstrably unhealthy behavior. If we weren't collecting some additional fee for such things, it would amount to a subsidy of unhealthy behaviors.

So go ahead and think it's obnoxious. We're even. Seeing as the vast majority at that time had no say in the political process because they didn't have a penis, or land, and weren't white, it's a pretty ignorant and obnoxious appeal to authority you're making via The Founders who were fat white rich men.

Are small farms barred from participating in these subsidy programs?

Sugar plantations are huge, they're well established, there's essentially no one entering that market so you'd call getting into it as a having a high barrier to entry.

I replied to a similar question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10824205

abuse of crop insurance: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-09/farmers-bo...

Can you provide more support for the argument that "mega-store purchasing policies" make farm co-ops a "moot point"? It looks like even Whole Foods, one of the largest mega-suppliers of produce in the US, readily sources from co-ops.

A bigger possible reason farms tend not to join co-ops is that they integrate vertically and do direct marketing both to chains like WF and to farmers markets and, particularly, restaurants. For vegetables, there are a lot of farms like this in the Midwest.

Obviously, if you're growing soy or corn or wheat, it's a different story. But I think nobody is particularly surprised that you can't readily make a living selling crops that are standardized and bid on in commodities exchanges.

Whole Foods does it as a part of their "local" and "organic" brand identity, but even they don't buy from very small providers. Walmart and the major grocery chains generally do not.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/04/171051906/can...

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/08/08/where-does-your-grocery-...

Sure, Walmart is not buying bespoke crops from small family farms.

But it's not my argument that small family farms are likely to supply a significant portion of all the produce the median American buys at a grocery store.

Rather, my argument is that there are steady, high-volume buyers for small family farmers. Whole Foods can constitute a tiny fraction of the produce sold in the US (though: they don't; they're extremely popular) and still be one of several means by which it is viable for small farmers to be in business.

And, I guess my point is, this seems to be the case.

When you read this Salon article, you didn't get a bit of a "Brooklyn" vibe from this particular "mid-20s, early-30s" farmer outraged that their watermelons and lavender flowers buttered by the Sacremento sunlight on their less-than-one-city-block farm plot couldn't pay all their bills?

Having grown up on a dry land wheat farm, a farm that had subsidies along with everyone else, I think your argument that large farms are favored is flawed.

From the time that my grandfather homesteaded in 1911, productivity of all farms, large and small, increased by almost two orders of magnitude over the next 50 years. Increases in technology, including mechanical, chemical, and electrical drove the price of wheat and other crops down.

So it is simply a matter of scale. It should surprise no one on hn. For me, my parents saw the writing on the wall and sent me off to engineering school. There is some romance associated with "going back to the land" but you know we haven't been there all that long.

What I wonder, in the sense of sustainability, if the ecology of the earth will be able to withstand the savage damage caused by agriculture.

They forgot economy of scale, but they also forgot to buy US subsidized crop insurance [1] to get a piece of the $14bn government handouts paid in a single year to big agriculture.

Their biggest mistake was trying to earn money honestly without sucking the teat of the corporate-welfare bandwagon.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-09/farmers-bo...

I worked on a crop insurance app for a while. Big insurance co's greatest frustration is that farmers could basically just sign up and be guaranteed not to take a loss due to anything except their own purposeful damage (even market price below a certain value). And it would cost them nothing. Only the smart farmers did. The rest were fearful they were going to get swindled.

The smart ones used it like a hedge fund where they guaranteed a profit and were mainly betting profit rates on how much supply there was going to be.

Insurance company was providing it at a very low cost as the govt sets the service charge over the coverage level. Insurance companies have to compete on how cheap they can make the offering to actually provide (good cheap IT, good cheap claims). Big insurance co I worked with did it just as part of their portfolio to make it easier to sell insurance on equipment and life insurance.

Really odd setup but made sense as an alternate way to do farm subsidies if you thought about it. But farm subsidies pay you not to grow, this pays you to grow and guarantees a certain income if you control your other costs (maintenance, overhead, etc).

>If they're truly in demand, one would expect wages or profits to signal that.

Unless tax breaks lobbied for by the large agricultural conglomerates distorted the market.

The author of the article is your typical naïve liberal. They seriously chose to effectively be a sharecropper in Northern California? Had they actually spent any time on real working farms before they decided to jump in? The irony is that these types of people look down upon the 'rednecks' of flyover country and have the audacity to think that ten measly acres is going to support two people in Northern California. They have this dream of 'organic' agriculture while implicitly criticizing non organic farming. These people don't really know the first thing about farming -- obviously. If they did, they would have had at least the common sense to do the math.

For the two to make a small (by Northern CA standards,) salary of $80k per year that would mean they'd have to get a profit of $8000 per acre.

Carrots yield about 19,000 pounds per acre grown conventionally. Organic yields are less but the higher prices roughly offset the differential. NorCal wholesaler prices are at most .32 per pound for carrots sold in 50 pound boxes. (San Fran wholesale market price as of Dec 31.)

That's about $6000 yearly income (using carrots as a representative crop) per acre. That's $60k gross. That's assuming maximal efficiency which, given the obvious inexperience of these 'farmers,' would be irrationally optimistic to expect.

So now you're looking at a maximum of $60k gross for two people on ten acres. Even assuming they had zero overhead, that's $30k per year per person. They aren't picking ten acres of crops by themselves. They have to pay some help. They also don't plow the fields with shovels, so they have to have equipment, fuel, etc. So their profit is pretty much poverty wage. They don't apparently understand that 1 tractor can plow 100 acres and that same tractor could plow 10 acres. Economies of scale! That isn't some Monsanto conspiracy, it's just a fact of business. One they choose to ignore.

Are these people just stupid? Unless your ten acres are in Napa and you're growing grapes, you aren't making a living from renting 10 acres and growing beets.

The implicitly argument is that something ought to be done about this unfairness of how economics don't treat the 10 acre farmer very well. However, as a consumer, that isn't my problem. I don't care if a carrot has a parchment birth certificate and a pedigree or if it's just a carrot grown on a super farm somewhere. I don't have a responsibility to subsidize vanity farmers. I didn't make them rent land and try to grow stuff. They obviously don't think through the economics before they pulled the trigger -- I'm not feeling sorry for them at all. The interesting thing is that they blame the factory farms and the 'lack of a living wage' for their failure. While these same exact people are unopposed to illegal immigration which is the primary source of labor for these farms they abhor!

Am I assuming their politics? Yes, obviously.. But anyone who read the article knows these are the kind of people that would vote for anyone but the most liberal candidates on the ballot; the same liberals that want to increase the very immigration that results in the inexpensive labor that ultimately is putting them out of business.

>We don’t have a lot of small family farms anymore for the same reason that we don’t have a lot of small family steel mills or utility companies: because it is a form of economic organization that doesn’t make a damned bit of sense. The next time I’m at some winger conference, Annette Kirk may very well punch me in the ear in memory of her late husband, but: Good riddance. Small-scale farming is the worst way of making a living known to mankind, and, given a choice, people will choose almost anything else. Do-gooders who can’t understand why people from rural India are lined up around the block for jobs in those purportedly horrible “sweat shops” and call centers and the like never ask themselves: What’s their next-best option? It’s hustling millet.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425146/or-my-people-say...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com