Ooo, Sensitive Lib's White Privilege crock of horse crap.

[michigancat]

this is much more complex than i would like.  you have to really sort of try to piece a lot of stuff together to get a picture that fits my perception of farm economic demography.  and in doing so, it's likely that one's preconceptions influence how you fit things together.

here's the link.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/184479/eib66_1_.pdf

here's what i think that is both in the article and fits with my perception.

- a smallish % of extremely poor farmers (less than 10% - i think it says 2-8, depending on how defined).
- a fairly large % of farmers who either entirely lease land or own a bit and lease a lot more.  some of these make good money, but many do not.  unfortunately, this dataset doesn't seem to break out the incomes and net worth of farm operators by land ownership.
- a fairly substantial % of old farmers who earn very little farm income and have very little disposable income.  many (most) of these farmers own land assets that value more than the national mean/median net worth (although if viewed as their retirement funds, i would still consider many (most ?) to be well below what in my mind would be necessary for a secure retirement.)
- a smaller % of younger farmers who farm a little land and basically derive all of their income from non-farm sources.
- a largish number of non-operator farm owners.  mostly wealthy.
- substantial % of of farm owners with substantial acreage.  almost by definition high net-worth, and mostly above average income.


because of the overlap between categories, fuzziness of some categories, and simply divergence in opinion of classification (i think of old farmers with low incomes and modest, but above national average, net worth as more poor than not.  i can certainly see arguments that they are not poor, but think there is a rational argument that they are.  young farmers with very low farm income, and near median non-farm income are even harder to classify, at least for me) it is hard to say from this whether there are "lots" of poor farmers or not.  i know i've been exposed to a fairly high % (high % that i would classify as poor or at least non-wealthy) among farmers i know or have interacted with.  probably a higher % than is true of the overall farm population.  even accounting for that bias, they seem to me to be a fairly substantial proportion of farm operators.  somewhere in the 20-25%ish range.

 

I mean, did you read your entire paper? (and fair or not, I don't consider "residential" farmers to really be farmers). How on earth can you come to your absurd 20-25% poverty rate for farmers?

Financial Status of the Family Farm
The year 2007 was above average for farming. Net farm income averaged
$35,100 per farm in 2007, 46 percent higher than in 2006. Only 3 percent of
farms were classified as vulnerable (negative net cash farm income with a
debt/asset ratio greater than 40 percent). Seventy-one percent of the vulner
-
able farms were residential/lifestyle farms, however, whose operators—by
definition—rely on off-farm work for their livelihood.

Limited-Resource Farms:  Few in Number
The number of limited-resource farms is sensitive to the asset or wealth
constraints used in the definitions. Under the three definitions with either of
these constraints, the count of limited-resource farms falls within a relatively
narrow range, from 65,800 to 143,000 farms (between 3 and 7 percent of all
U.S. farms). Under the sole definition without an asset/wealth constraint—the
one currently used by USDA—the number of limited-resource farms reaches
255,000, or 12 percent of all farms. In other words, there are relatively few
limited-resource farms, regardless of the definition used.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think a net farm average income of $35,100 is all that much, especially considering that was an above average year.

[CNS]

do farmers take salary from their corp?  Assuming most have corps that own the farm...

[sys]

i didn't say poverty, i said poor.  huge difference.  20-25% came from taking the 2-8% of very poor farmers from that paper and adding in my guesses of how many i would consider poor from the other categories (retired, lessee farmer, farmers who derive almost all income from non-farm sources)

[sys]

Limited-Resource Farms:  Few in Number
The number of limited-resource farms is sensitive to the asset or wealth
constraints used in the definitions. Under the three definitions with either of
these constraints, the count of limited-resource farms falls within a relatively
narrow range, from 65,800 to 143,000 farms (between 3 and 7 percent of all
U.S. farms). Under the sole definition without an asset/wealth constraint—the
one currently used by USDA—the number of limited-resource farms reaches
255,000, or 12 percent of all farms. In other words, there are relatively few
limited-resource farms, regardless of the definition used.

sorry.  3-12% very poor, not 2-8%.

[michigancat]

i didn't say poverty, i said poor.  huge difference.  20-25% came from taking the 2-8% of very poor farmers from that paper and adding in my guesses of how many i would consider poor from the other categories (retired, lessee farmer, farmers who derive almost all income from non-farm sources)

can you quantify the difference?

[sys]

can you quantify the difference?

federal poverty level for a family of 2 - $16,020; $24,300 for a family of 4.


what i'd consider poor is harder to enumerate, but certainly would include households making substantially more than that.  with farmers, it can be even harder to define since quite a few have very limited (and subject to substantial annual variation, which i think deserves a small discount) incomes but much greater net worth than would be typical for households with that income.

on a pure income basis, i'd probably put poor at somewhere around 40k for 2, 55k for 4.  on a pure net worth basis, probably around 0k at 30 years, 650k at 65.  however, for farmers i would also apply some sort of discount to the net worth, at least for farmers that live on their property.  i'm not sure how much of a discount, but some.  generating a definition that accounts for both income and net worth is beyond the scope of this post.

[michigancat]

can you quantify the difference?

federal poverty level for a family of 2 - $16,020; $24,300 for a family of 4.


what i'd consider poor is harder to enumerate, but certainly would include households making substantially more than that.  with farmers, it can be even harder to define since quite a few have very limited (and subject to substantial annual variation, which i think deserves a small discount) incomes but much greater net worth than would be typical for households with that income.

on a pure income basis, i'd probably put poor at somewhere around 40k for 2, 55k for 4.  on a pure net worth basis, probably around 0k at 30 years, 650k at 65.  however, for farmers i would also apply some sort of discount to the net worth, at least for farmers that live on their property.  i'm not sure how much of a discount, but some.  generating a definition that accounts for both income and net worth is beyond the scope of this post.

yeah, 55k for 4 people is not poor in most rural Kansas communities IMO (even if that's combined income). So I think that's where most of our disagreement comes from. Also, the "limited resource farm" number you quoted earlier is not the same thing as "very poor" and includes a ton of hobby farmers (which have a higher rate of being "limited resource" than full-time farmers).

[sys]

yeah, 55k for 4 people is not poor in most rural Kansas communities IMO (even if that's combined income). So I think that's where most of our disagreement comes from. Also, the "limited resource farm" number you quoted earlier is not the same thing as "very poor" and includes a ton of hobby farmers (which have a higher rate of being "limited resource" than full-time farmers).

household = combined income.

starting on page 41 there is a presentation of limited-resource farm terminology.  it wouldn't include hobby farmers unless those farmers have very limited non-hobby income.

[michigancat]

Look at the Table on page 41, it absolutely would include plenty of hobby farmers. Also note that medium and large operations have virtually no limited resource farms.

[sys]

Look at the Table on page 41, it absolutely would include plenty of hobby farmers. Also note that medium and large operations have virtually no limited resource farms.

only if they have very little non-farm income.  are you misunderstanding what household income means?  i'm not understanding how you aren't understanding this.



no crap with regards to medium and large.

[michigancat]

Look at the Table on page 41, it absolutely would include plenty of hobby farmers. Also note that medium and large operations have virtually no limited resource farms.

only if they have very little non-farm income.  are you misunderstanding what household income means?  i'm not understanding how you aren't understanding this.



no crap with regards to medium and large.

Have you been paying attention? I said at the very start that farms below medium and large (as defined in the paper) are basically non-existent in Kansas.

[michigancat]

Also, I missed the line of the table about operator income. I'm trying to do two things at once. Still, the highest percentage you cite (updated definition) is at least half residential/low sales. The median acreage of this group is 75 acres. That's hobby farming in Kansas.

[sys]

I said at the very start that farms below medium and large (as defined in the paper) are basically non-existent in Kansas.

ok.  so that clears up what you're wrong about in terms of farm size.  now what is that you are reading incorrectly on page 41?

[sys]

Also, I missed the line of the table about operator income. I'm trying to do two things at once. Still, the highest percentage you cite (updated definition) is at least half residential/low sales. The median acreage of this group is 75 acres. That's hobby farming in Kansas.

so you are defining hobby farming based on having small size, which correlates extremely highly with having low farm-income, and then stating that low income farms don't count because they are hobby farms?  good lord, michigancat.

[michigancat]

Also, I missed the line of the table about operator income. I'm trying to do two things at once. Still, the highest percentage you cite (updated definition) is at least half residential/low sales. The median acreage of this group is 75 acres. That's hobby farming in Kansas.

Ha, so I only typed it (but didn't post), but I don't consider hobby farmers to be "farmers" in the original context. I didn't actually say it at the start. I think it's reasonable to not consider a hobby farmer to be a real farmer.

Based on the chart on page 8, I'd only consider "medium sales, farmer occupation" and larger to be prevalent in Kansas (based on acreage). Sure, there are exceptions, but not many.

[catastrophe]

Did anyone see the part where he said a 65 year old with a net worth of $650,000 should be considered poor?

[sys]

Did anyone see the part where he said a 65 year old with a net worth of $650,000 should be considered poor?

i wasn't clear.  household of 2 with 650k at 65.


i'm aware that most americans have less than that saved, but i think that's a level of wealth that would afford a relatively insecure retirement (but perhaps pensions and other guaranteed benefits are not properly accounted for in the average americans' net worth.  i've heard that argument, at least).

[sys]

Based on the chart on page 8, I'd only consider "medium sales, farmer occupation" and larger to be prevalent in Kansas (based on acreage). Sure, there are exceptions, but not many.

more than you think, i think.  dryland farming in kansas is not very productive.  take a hypothetical dryland wheat farmer farming a half section.  x 40 bushels/acre x $5/bushel = 64k in sales = farming operation, low sales.

[catastrophe]

Did anyone see the part where he said a 65 year old with a net worth of $650,000 should be considered poor?

i wasn't clear.  household of 2 with 650k at 65.


i'm aware that most americans have less than that saved, but i think that's a level of wealth that would afford a relatively insecure retirement (but perhaps pensions and other guaranteed benefits are not properly accounted for in the average americans' net worth.  i've heard that argument, at least).

I'd grant you it might not be a completely comfortable retirement, but considering "poor" is a relative term, it doesn't make sense to use it to describe such a large segment of the American population.

Edit: as an illustration: if I married a stay at home wife, got a sweet $140k / year job straight out of college, got a few modest raises along the way, rented a house, leased a car, and saved 10% of my income every year until 65, I'd end up with a net worth of $650k.

P.S. This is why you invest your money folks.

[michigancat]

Based on the chart on page 8, I'd only consider "medium sales, farmer occupation" and larger to be prevalent in Kansas (based on acreage). Sure, there are exceptions, but not many.

more than you think, i think.  dryland farming in kansas is not very productive.  take a hypothetical dryland wheat farmer farming a half section.  x 40 bushels/acre x $5/bushel = 64k in sales = farming operation, low sales.

I don't know of any full time farmers in KS that only farm a half section.

[sys]

I'd grant you it might not be a completely comfortable retirement, but considering "poor" is a relative term, it doesn't make sense to use it to describe such a large segment of the American population.

you may be right.


btw, i'd be happy to see that dumbass that earned 140k for decades and only save 10% starve to death in his old age.

[sys]

I don't know of any full time farmers in KS that only farm a half section.

my grandfather had just over a half section.  now you know of one.

[michigancat]

I don't know of any full time farmers in KS that only farm a half section.

my grandfather had just over a half section.  now you know of one.

[sys]

i'm not sure what your point is.