Comment by froindt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by froindt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The issue, at least in my area, is that property is just prohibitively expensive.

There's a dangerous mentality which comes across farmers frequently. The neighbor is getting out of farming for whatever reason and putting their land up for sale. Land is typically held for decades, and having any of your neighbors selling their land may never happen again in your lifetime.

So farmers end up paying ridiculous amounts of money for land which will give them a very small positive, or often a negative, return on investment.

And good luck if you want to get into farming. The capital expenditure is ridiculous, even just for 40 acres of land. Medium quality farmland was running $6,800/acre in 2017. [1] $272,000 get you 40 acres without buildings, equipment, animals, seeds, a well, etc. It's so easy to hit $500k even if you went with used equipment. If you tried this, you'd probably want to build your own brand and get people willing to pay a significant premium for your product rather than trying to grow commodity products.

[1] http://dreamdirt.com/blog/iowa-farm-land-land-values-up-2-in...

In my area, again anecdotal, no local guy has purchased property over 5 acres at any land auction in the last 5 years. Either mega-farm-corps have, or hunting/outfitting mega-corps.

The huge companies get involved and take the price for 40 acres from a relatively sensible $120,000 (what I purchased at 10 years ago) to $750,000+.

If you can't work at a scale that is so much larger than anything a family farm can, then you're priced out immediately. And if the farming mega-corps are not interested, it's because the ground isn't fit for row-cropping and the mega-corp nationwide hunting trek outfitting companies will double your bid without blinking.

It's a sad state of affairs, really. The only people who have enough money to play the game are either corporations or are in their 90's and bought the ground when it was $30/acre.

> It's a sad state of affairs, really. The only people who have enough money to play the game are either corporations or are in their 90's and bought the ground when it was $30/acre.

I don't think it's sad, more efficient users of resources are bidding them up which is exactly what they should be doing. The idea of a small farmer is great and has a lot of American nostalgia, but in general a giant company that produces much more food on the same land is way better for the country as a whole. It gets messy with subsidies, but the idea of more efficient players replacing small timers is how we keep upping productivity year after year and get richer as a country.

We're not getting stronger as a country.

A handful of corporations are gaining massive influence over our political and legal systems. The "small farmer" is precisely what our country was founded on and was considered our strength. It allowed us to be something closer to a true democracy as opposed to the functional oligarchy we're running at this point. You're not an independent citizen if you have to depend on an employer to keep you fed, sheltered, and healthy.

It's only more efficient if you consider "generation of theoretical GDP" the ultimate badge of efficiency. If it's sitting in some banker's pocket, extra productivity doesn't really benefit anyone.

You nailed it. Honestly I couldn't say that any better.

It is more than nostalgia. It's a strength. What we're seeing in SO many areas is just a race to the bottom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com