I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for.
It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture.
USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport farm workers. Tarif imports of steel so machine costs go up. Tarif fertilizer so production costs go up. Tarif everything else to reduce consumer spending power.
Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.
The Republican party has a well polished message assigning blame to anyone else: gays, Muslims, illegal immigrants, trans people, feminists, government employees, etc etc etc. If only they can put those people in their places, prosperity will rain down on the proper Americans. As it did in the 1950s when those people didn't exist.
Yes. It's very effective, very dangerous, and it's not at all unique to America; the exact same approach results in high-minority vote shares across Europe.
I think a lot of it comes down to the rural/urban divide, in a rural setting there's a lot less convinence, fewer services. A need to be more self suficcient. While urban settings have many amenities and services, they also tend to be hotspots for mental illness, crime, lack of housing for those who don't or can't make enough money to afford increasing rent and food costs, it's harder to police (more resources needed) illness from concentrated pollution. Theres some who see the conservative side of politics as fiscally conservative, and the liberal side aiming for more social support. This is a gross simplification of U.S. politics (I'm Canadian, we have a rural divide as well, take a look at how the urban Canadian centres vote vs rural, the difference is our party colours are backwards to yours!) So many rural folks see the tax bill and say "what do I get for this" and many urban folks see the need for stricter regulations, more social support etc. And say "We need more resources, let's throw money at the problem". Coming from a small town if you see someone in need it's not too burdensom to lend a hand, in a dense urban situation it's neccesary to turn your back on the many individuals and say this is a social problem that is more comfortable to abstract to the government to handle. Now subsides for farmers seem weird from my vantage point. On one hand the scale of operations for a farmer do seem lofty compared to my experience as an individual earner, I don't have to budget for sub $1M equipment upkeep/replacement etc. But on the other I'm not beyond considering "conspiracy theroies" like "sugar makes us more susceptable to influance, and lowers immune response, leading to higher healthcare costs" - bassically we are the product not the customer.
More importanly there's a rift between "I care" and "I'm paid to care" that's common for social support, just like it's common for the tech industry.
All this is an over simplification, but I'd love for us to do better as a whole. I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide. Maybe through understanding we can be less judgemental of each other and find ways to work together, or at least understand and build boundaries to make the divide more livable.
In the US money tends to be distributed from more populated regions to less populated regions. The idea that rural americans oppose social spending because they don't have access to these programs is false.
It does seem that they are often unaware of the the social spending on them. Some of it is surely economy of scale: it's diffuse so everything costs more. Delivery of social services is much more efficient in urban settings, and its failures make the news.
The huge bulk of social spending is in the form of direct payments or reimbursements. Medicaid, disability, snap. That stuff. I don't buy that this is much more efficient in urban settings.
Something that should also be factored in, IMO, is the gap between "on paper" and "reality", and how it varies by area.
That is, my friends in rural areas report a lot more cases of hostile workers in medicaid/etc processes actively doing their best to screw people over, to an extent that I, as someone who's always lived in the suburbs or cities, would have expected someone to get fired over. "Misplaced" paperwork, "oops, I told you to submit the wrong thing and now the deadline is passed, too bad so sad", "refer you to another doctor with no openings for 3 months...who then refuses to see you because the referral was malformed, and now you need to get in again at the first place because they refuse to do paperwork without an appointment..." ...the list of ways that you can be malicious in the gap is very large.
But in larger environments, my experience is those people get fired or transferred out of those positions once a stink is made, because regardless of the organization's feelings as a whole, they don't want the attention the stink caused. In smaller settings, that response is harder to trigger.
So that would be, I suspect, a major reason this can work better in urban settings - because the people who actively sabotage the use of these services are better filtered out.
I believe the implication is that in urban settings, access to well paying jobs is increased, so there is less reliance on Medicaid, disability, and snap per capita in dense population areas.
Subsidies for farmers ensure surplus capacity. Lead times are long and you can't risk even a temporary failure. So you spend more money than current supply and demand would justify.
I agree farming is key to our survival, it's likely that failure in surplus has a knock on effect seen more in the export market then in the first world. But aside from that do we need so much HFCS and soy products? I've heard they both get a big subsidy specifically. I'm biased as I have food sensitivities to both, but I know there's a debate over their value as food products, and their health effects, soy protein isolate is for newspapers not burgers!
Perhaps a need to be self sufficient in a subset of possible ways. My criticism is they are self sufficient in the highly visible ways that indicate identity and matter to that individual. When we consider ways that impact other humans, the full picture is revealed.
The thing is, while most people in rural lands think they are self sufficient, they still depend on technology and government services plenty, as well as money coming in. But yet they are on the high horse of thinking they don't need any of that. Until that changes, they aren't going to change their mind.
>I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide.
Nope. This has been the democratic approach for ages, and the right takes full advantage of the "weak" left. A lot of current bullshit could have been avoided if the Democrats went hard on MAGA instead of trying to unite the country and prosecuted Trump for insurrection to the full extent.
Its time for the complete opposite. People need to get scared again of getting a beating in public, or worse, if they voice their bullshit opinion.
> Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.
All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm".
If you own a farm today (meaning, you didn't go bankrupt sometime in the last 150 years and move on to something else), it is because you were successful at the business of farming.
Farming is a business that doesn't scale down. To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land. You also need a lot of equipment. Thus, the net worth of your "average small farmer" is 10's of millions of dollars.
When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers.
I think the public still has a wildly inaccurate picture of what a farmer is. When people think "Farmer" they still think of the romantic picture of 1930's Ma and Pa dressed up in work clothes, working the land like in American Gothic or some Norman Rockwell painting. So, of course we should help subsidize good ol Ma and Pa to live off the land! Be kind to these fictional figures in the painting!
The general public are not picturing "Farmer = billion dollar agri-business who's finance department is bigger than some small towns".
> I think the public still has a wildly inaccurate picture of what a farmer is
No thanks to media (NPR is very guilty of this) that consistently interviews people that fit this stereotype. Corporate farmers are happy to sit out these interviews and let the myth continue.
> All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm".
Rich, as in richer than broke? I opened my farm business with a $15,000 (inflation adjusted) investment. That's a good chunk of change, but probably not what anyone is imagining as rich. The average household keeps more than that in their bank account. It is in the realm of something most can afford to do, if they are willing to stomach the high risk.
> If you own a farm today, it is because you were successful at the business of farming.
Even on day one of operating the business? Technically you own one, but if you are bankrupt tomorrow, was that really success in the business of farming? Surely there needs to be some kind of proving period at least?
> To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land.
Depends on what you want out of it. If your goal is to amass endless assets to sell when you retire, then yes, you need a lot of land (and a lot of debt). If your goal is to provide a tidy income, you can do quite well with a small acreage. And I don't mean some kind of market garden thing, although that is an option too. I mean even plain old commodity farming.
It's a lot like the software industry. You can forego a paycheque to try to build a startup that rains fortunes down upon you when you are ready to let go, or you can get a job that pays a decent salary but will never make you unfathomably rich. A farm that has achieved both isn't unheard of, but generally that requires many generations all having great luck. Not exactly the norm.
Of course, like the software industry, the "startup" sounds like more fun, so that is certainly where most farms try to go. Someone looking for a paycheque can find that doing any kind of job, so this group also needs to have a deep love for farming; not just an interest in finance like the former can attract.
> When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers.
In my country there are exceptions carved out for farmers on that front. The public accepts it because "passing down the family farm" over "corporations buying it all" is considered a social good. Why do you think Republicans have to speak (and even apply, perhaps) in broad terms and not simply say "tax cuts for farmers only"? Do Republicans not like farmers? But if they didn't like farmers, why would they ("secretly") introduce tax cuts for farmers?
Somewhere around 50-60% of Americans do not have $15k in the bank. The average American is more likely to have about $8k available to them, and of course that average is only an average, so likely 33% or more of Americans do not have $8,000 available to them.
This is likely easily skewed because the bar is set so low and the top 5% are so far above that bar that 1 person can outweigh the cash availability of tens or hundreds of thousands.
> The average American is more likely to have about $8k available to them, The average American is more likely to have about $8k available to them, and of course that average is only an average
That is the median. The earlier figure was mean. But, still, that just means starting half the farm I did, which is still quite realistic. You don't need 30,000 acres in your first year — or, frankly, ever. It's a good chunk of change, but not what "rich" usually implies.
My neighbor rents out his family farm he inherited. The farmer that rented it had his crop fail this year. Because of DOGE's actions, the Government isn't paying out the insurance (insurance that this farmer paid for). The farmer decided to just be done farming (he is old and his farm is small so he rents/farms all the small farms around him). Most of the farms he rented are owned by adult children that inherited the family farm and couldn't bring themselves to sell it but now that they aren't being farmed will probably be sold for rich people estates.
What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers?
I also disagree on the wealth redistribution. Government agencies are managers of risk. *
Is there a risk to the country's food security if farmers go bust on mass? Then the Government needs to mitigate that risk. Fairly simple.
* This was the explanation from the director general of non-US primary industries department as to the whole reason they exist. Managing biosecurity risks are particularly important, but also managing fishing stocks and helping farmers mitigate their risk.
> If the Republicans get voted out and become powerless, they (or the successor party) will have to be better to regain power.
has this been the trend over the last 40 years after getting the boot in 1992, 2008 and 2020?
the trend is that they become increasingly bold and activist to the point of conspiracy theories being mainstream (death-panels, vaccine chips, birthers, qanon etc etc)
and the other issue that remains is that when dems take over again, they mostly carry on with the republican predecessor's (de-regulation, welfare/healthcare cuts, iraq/afganistan, tarrifs, foreign relations etc) policies with a better and more polished look... then voters who expected better get fed up and bail and the seesaw rocks the other way again.
> Anything else is some accelerationist nonsense.
i don't know, we are already quite accelerated at the moment no?
i would love to hear Farm-To-Taber answering this. she, a farmer and farm worker, ran as a democrat. i really like and recommend her podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@FarmToTaber
she regularly does episodes about politics in regards to farming.
Democrats write constantly about trying to reach rural americans. I've never seen democrats meaningfully position themselves as the party for city dwellers. Instead I've seen democrats simply refuse to describe cities as hellholes full of crime, laziness, and sexual promiscuity like the republicans do.
People voted for Trump because he was the only person who actually represented a change from the establishment. I wouldn't have voted for him (im Canadian), but I totally understand the frustration people feel with the political status quo.
That’s because they don’t appear to actually be trying to win. They appear to exist for the sole purpose of playing the good cop to the republican bad cop.
Both sides are as bad as each other. Sure there may be a few individuals who truly stand for something and would sacrifice everything to make some change, but the majority don't and in many cases will never have the power or opportunity to bring about change.
Why?
They're individuals who above all look to secure the steady job that will provide the standard of living they aspire to. Unless someone can self-fund and run as an independent, they are beholden to those who provide the funds required to run for office and also have to pander to whichever party put then on the ticket.
> What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers?
For the love of God, please don't "both sides" this stuff.
When is the last time you took a look at the bills coming before Congress and how they were voted on? Like, literally go to the congressional website and view bills and vote tallies? Would you believe it if I told you stuff like "Prevent rich people from stealing wages from their workers" are voted SOLELY ON PARTY LINES.
In fact, we have the most divided congress in like 100 years. There has not been a point in the last century in which the 2 parties were so different.
Lastly, there are at least 50 Dems in congress right now who explicitly aren't beholden to corporate finance and regularly introduce bills to remove money from politics.
> Lastly, there are at least 50 Dems in congress right now who explicitly aren't beholden to corporate finance and regularly introduce bills to remove money from politics.
Sometimes seems like they introduce those bills only when they can't possibly pass. Makes for good theater and talking points ("I _tried_, look!").
Democrats couldn't fix a single thing while in power and have now lost to Trump twice, you need to stop enabling these absolute losers. Look at the people they keep running! They have no spine and will crumble at the slightest push back. It's all "Aw shucks the parliamentarian said we couldn't" bullshit. They see politics as a cash generating mechanism for consultants, not a means for improving the country. I'm so tired of being texted for more money by these cowards. Insane to think they won't just set conditions for the next Trump all over again. God I wish Sheinbaum could run for office here.
Go look at the bills coming before congress and tell me how many are voted purely along party lines? Then look at the bills themselves.
And the vast majority of the party is actually working towards real change. And guess what's happening to those who don't (the Schumers and Pelosis of the party)? They have a 5% approval rating and have to CONSTANTLY deal with people from their own party telling them to step down.
Yes, a handful of people in the Democrat party suck.
But that's not the same as saying they're the same as Republicans. Not even remotely close.
The "both sides" stuff is an amateur, armchair take that tells me the person doesn't actually follow what's happening.
And again, you don't need any more proof that what they actually vote on. Go ahead, look up the bills. How does the "both sides" argument stand up to the fact that we have the most divided congress in almost 100 years?
I've been curious about this myself, and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect.
One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their local roads are dirt roads, there's no traffic lights, no police cars[1] or ambulances zipping by on the regular, etc...
Conversely, they do get frustrated by the likes of the EPA turning up -- invariably city folk with suits and dress shoes -- telling them what to do. "You can't burn this" or "You can't dump that!". More commonly "you can't cut down trees on your land that you thought were your property".
Their perception of government is that it violates their God-given rights regularly and gives little in return.
The further the seat of power, the worse their opinion of it. Local councils they might tolerate, state governments they view with suspicion, and the federal government may as well be on another planet.
Hence, their votes are easily swayed by the "reduce federal government" rhetoric.
We all know this is as an obvious falsehood: Trump grew the size of the federal government with his Big Beautiful Bill! So did every Republican government before him for quite a while now!
That doesn't matter. Propaganda works. The message resonates. The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel.
PS: A great example of this are the thousands of unemployed people that lost their coal mining jobs. Trump lied through his teeth and told them they would get their mining jobs back. Hillary told them they could be retrained as tech support or whatever. They. Did. Not. Like. That. They wanted their jobs back! So they voted for Trump, who had zero chance of returning them to employment because they had been replaced by automation and larger, more powerful mining machines. Their jobs were gone permanently, so they doubled down by voting against the person who promised to pull them out of that hole. Sadly, this is a recurring theme in politics throughout the world.
[1] As an example, this is why they're mostly pro-gun! They know viscerally that if someone broke into their property, they'd have to defend themselves because the local police can't get there in time to save them.perception.
I buy all this, and I think your analysis is spot on. There's z log of cognitive dissonance going on here.
>> One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent.
I think they like to think of themselves as highly independent. But in truth of course they are highly dependent, on city customers for their product, on foreign countries for exports, on federal govt for subsidies (both direct and indirect), on suppliers for machinery, seed and fertilizer, and in some cases on immigrant labor.
Just as we are dependent on farmers. It's all interconnected.
Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies.
They do of course have many legitimate grievances, but I'm not sure that voting for the party that seems to hate them is a winning strategy.
Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people?
I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line.
>Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies.
I live in a much smaller country but here there's similar pressures at play.
I feel like a more nuanced take that farmers either don't voice or don't voice well here is that the federal and EU gov has benefited these big corporate farms they compete with because they're by far the best at siphoning off these various subsidies that farmers supposedly depend on.
At the same time gov requirements make it almost impossible to run an smaller independent farm or one that doesn't depend on one of these middlemen to an extreme degree.
I worked for a meat conglomerate here in belgium and plenty of the farmers they dealt with didn't own their own cows (and plenty went under). They essentially rented their business to the company which owned the animals on their land, provided the calf feed made by their subsidiary, employed a load of vets, had an international transport company, had me and others writing software that would automate the mindbogglingly stupid forms and rules for transport (which were interpreted comically differently by regional departments of the federal food safety agency so depending on the jurisdiction you had to do radically different things).
Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly.
On the other hand there's also plenty of examples of things like the gov rugpulling with environmental legislation in the netherlands.
Things like caping farms at past nitrogen emissions (benefiting the big ones) after first encouraging farmers to take loans and invest insane amounts into equipment to reduce those emissions.
> Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people?
It is interesting that you immediately jumped to "illegal people". When I read it, I thought about the US H-2A via for temp farm hands. This page: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-d... ... says 385,000 visa holders in 2024. That is a lot!
Since you are based in Belgium, how many native-born Belgians are still performing low-skill manual labour on a farm? Probably very few. Most of them are probably from the poorest parts of EU or some kind of temp farm hand visa. Specifically: Fruits and vegetables require lots of low-skill manual labor for harvest and packing.
> At the same time gov requirements make it almost impossible to run an smaller independent farm
Call me cynical, but I am not nostalgic for the "smaller independent farm". If farms want to be smaller and independent in the 21st century, they need to distinguish themselves with product (usually: organic or "free range"), branding, and value add (example: create a cheese brand that only uses your special organic cow's milk). If they cannot or will not, then they will need to sell their business to the mega agg corps.
> It is interesting that you immediately jumped to "illegal people".
USDA estimated 42% of farm hands is doing illegal work few years ago. Other sources estimated to 50-60%. That is a fuckton and has an incredibly significant impact on wage pressures.
It was also brought up in the context of GOP policy "the party that hates them" which has focused heavily on illegals and caused quite the uproar. It's hard to not jump to it in that cotnext and also more than those "US H-2A via for temp farm hands" i believe.
>how many native-born Belgians are still performing low-skill manual labour on a farm?
It's mostly migrant work indeed same as in the meat industry I observed.
They proudly had giant old black and white wall covering pics of locals doing the work decades ago but now among more than a hundred there were maybe 2 belgians on the factory floor at any given moment.
That said here in belgium I suspect the amount of illegal work in agriculture is lower than in the US and places like Italy.
>Call me cynical, but I am not nostalgic for the "smaller independent farm". If farms want to be smaller and independent in the 21st century, they need to distinguish themselves with product (usually: organic or "free range"), branding, and value add (example: create a cheese brand that only uses your special organic cow's milk). If they cannot or will not, then they will need to sell their business to the mega agg corps.
Call me cynical as well but that doesn't help for the most part.
I follow some such farms that do exactly that.
2 examples from sweden I know jump trough hoops for those organic and "free range" labels.
Hoops that are made specifically for the massive operations. So the giant poultry halls get to add some square meters of semi outside space, pull in a big proportional subsidy and aquire the free range label whilst the guy trying to differentiate himself has to add elaborate construction to his chicken tractors for his free roaming chickens to follow the spirit of the law made for the massive operation.
I personally know and helped a peppers/tomatoes and respective seed operation. All heirloom, mostly organic and they too almost had to close their books because they suddenly needed seed passports and a load more paperwork and the legislators apparently hadn't considered that this was something that was also done by corporations that count with numbers smaller than 1mil. That's not me being hyperbolic. They straight up confirmed they hadn't thought it possible that someone might run an operation without boatloads of employees or an upstart.
Also small is relative in the context i described. Many of these were still big expensive operations making investments costing hundreds of thousands, operating a lot of land. Just run by a normal family rather than a big coporate structure.
Mind you the meat company i worked for was also a family operation but the family all drove Brabuses that cost more than my house and had spare money to invest in retirement homes, etc....Puts it a bit in perspective.
> If they cannot or will not, then they will need to sell their business to the mega agg corps.
I do not wish to live in a corporatocracy nor do i fancy a form of capitalism where healthy competition is impossible since nobody can enter or maintain in certain vital sectors.
> Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly.
You are assuming this is an unintended effect, but it is very much the intended effect of bureaucratic rules and the reason large companies and conglomerates constantly lobby for them: they can afford the overhead costs (until the inevitable external disruptor comes around and totally eats their lunch, see europe) and smaller players cannot. These rules are moats built by big companies.
Doubly so for subsidies tied to complex filing and reporting requirements: large companies easily do this (they have department(s) just for handling these larger than whatever department in the government is handling the paperwork), small players can't and miss out.
Shouldnt they at least have to try? Who else gets to throw up their hands before even trying to raise wages and offer an attractve (as much as is possible) employment offer to domestic labor before they get to skip all that to get to the good stuff where they get to pay even shittier wages, afford less rights or access to judicial review for their workers, and basically totally control them thru deportation threats should they get to uppity on Freedom Land's supply?
You can try, but the unemployment levels in the USA have not generally been low enough to find enough workers in total in recent decades. Worse, even the last few % of unemployment is a deliberate policy choice to prevent a rapid cycle of wage inflation as everyone competes for a limited supply of workers:
The farmers would have to pay enough for "seasonal work spending all day doing manual labour in the sun without any AC" to compete with "year round work spending all day stacking shelves in supermarket where the temperature is at consistently in the range that doesn't put off the customers". And if the farmers got the former shelf stackers, then the supermarkets need to find more people to do the stacking. Food prices go up, both wholesale (because the farmers have to pay workers more) and retail beyond that (because so do the supermarkets).
I keep seeing stories about poorer Americans struggling with food prices even without this kind of cycle; but it doesn't end with just those two examples, it's all the low-pay jobs that are inherently more comfortable than farm labour, and if they find themselves short of labour and raise wages they too have to raise prices to balance their books, and whichever professions they in turn get labour from have the same choices, it ripples across the entire economy. Which may be good or bad for other reasons, but it's a massive impact across the entire economy, not something which is an easy one-liner.
Also, despite all those issues, look at this from the point of view of those workers: They've got seasonal work that pays them somewhat more than they'd earn in their home countries, and until very recently that work would not have come with a risk of being deported to a completely different country than they'd come from.
It seems to me like it would initially make inflation spike a lot if applied abruptly but regardless of the timeline would also increase the standing of the lower classes doing menial work substantially.
This also has an effect on those other cushier low wage jobs as they then have to compete with the previously unattractive fieldwork.
And they bloody well have to compete because food prices would rise and people are sensitive to that.
There's more to it of course and maybe it's in some way good but there's no way the current way of doing things with half or more of farmhands being illegally employed does not provide downward wage pressure for americans. We don't have to be wishy washy about that bit.
>look at this from the point of view of those workers
The government has no mandate to benefit them over it's own citizens beyond the obvious (foreign aid, disaster relief, etc) though.
> The government has no mandate to benefit them over it's own citizens beyond the obvious (foreign aid, disaster relief, etc) though.
Yes, absolutely, I'm just pushing back there against "basically totally control them thru deportation threats should they get to uppity on Freedom Land's supply"; this was, previously, a mutually beneficial relationship despite being… I was about to write "second class citizen", but no, less than citizen even then.
That said, current regime clearly regards foreign aid, disaster relief as not worth supplying, they either don't understand the soft-power benefits to the USA or don't care.
Because their (in)dependence was questioned on various fronts in the context of the american bipartisan system and more specifically the republican party and it's policies aka "the party that hates them".
Wrt the subsidies, consumer market and all that i don't have much to add but wrt the migrant workers the point of contention to my knowledge is mostly illegals (regardless of the actual number deported, the perhaps brutal way in which this is done, etc), ICE, etc.
It's also my understanding that illegals are far far more present in farm work and a few other industries in the US (and to lesser extent in europe) to the extreme extent that those without legal work authorisation make up nearly half or more of the farmhands. (USDA estomated 42% few years ago but others had good reason to suspect between 50 & 60% or a even more)
So yeah there's no real way to not think of illegal farm work there.
In that context and the opposition there's some elements like Bernie that seem to stick to their line and call this kind of faux open borders a right wing position whilst the rest of the democrats and their base seem to kneejerk the other way in response to recent events and republican standpoints and suddenly seem to have started supporting illegal entry, employment, etc
I was a bit tongue in cheek in my response. Yes, you're right that (almost famously) farm work is done by a disproportionate amount of illegals, but conflating those with immigrants as a default does injustice to the hardworking people that followed the rules.
>Yes, you're right that (almost famously) farm work is done by a disproportionate amount of illegals, but conflating those with immigrants as a default does injustice to the hardworking people that followed the rules.
I think that shifts a bit when there's potentially more of the former than the later (or even just anything vaguely close to that).
Especially when that's the aspect that's been drawing so much focus in this context.
>Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line.
Margins are tight for produce, I don't think it's that immigrants are depressing the wages its more so consumer preference and competition. Yes, if it was more punishing for companies caught hiring people without verification it would increase wages, but it would also increase the price of food, something which has been wildy unpopular with the voter base
>Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly.
This is a problem, I hate that with the so called "digital era" that paperwork and online forms have replaced human contacts, why do governments not care about having subsidiary brokers who are invested in both preventing fraud and talking to people who require assistance, doorman fallacy i guess.
> The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel.
Most large farm owners are very well off and are absolutely voting in their own interests for the party whose primary goal is to cut taxes on the wealthiest while cutting government support for the poorest.
The rural working class and poor on the other hand are however often voting against their economic interests, but their economic situation has long been ignored by both partie, so having given up hope for economic change, they often vote on culture/identity issues.
> They are quite aware of taxes because 13.5% of their income on average comes directly from federal subsidies paid by taxes on "city folk".
I have some investments that will go up and down $10K on a daily basis. That's just a number in a mainframe somewhere, I don't even notice unless I go look, and even then it doesn't "feel" real. If I have to hand over an extra $1 for my coffee in cash, I feel it viscerally. I grind my teeth. I hate it.
The immediacy and in-person nature of an EPA fine feels a lot worse than some grant that may be little more than an annual electronic deposit in a bank account.
> Most large farm owners are very well off and are absolutely voting in their own interests for the party whose primary goal is to cut taxes on the wealthiest while cutting government support for the poorest.
To be fair to farmers, it's more complicated than that. A lot of farmers are wealthy because the poorer farmers have been squeezed out, often because of the actions of the very governments they voted for. This has caused a lot of consolidation into large conglomerates, which utilise their tax breaks to outcompete smaller farmers, further squeezing them.
> To be fair to farmers, it's more complicated than that. A lot of farmers are wealthy because the poorer farmers have been squeezed out, often because of the actions of the very governments they voted for.
Of course, it's not so different in that way than other oligopolistic industries, like tech.
Most family farms (From my area) are land rich. The land is worth a lot, but they never sell it. The farming essentially pays for the land, and maybe a little to live off of. They are NOT raking it in.
Also almost all of them have notes on this land, not owned outright.
What % of farms in your area are small family farms (either by count or economic %)?
In the country it’s like 40% of the farms and 20% of the value. That stat alone shows the real problem, big agricultural is wildly more efficient (without wading into the externalities). And big agricultural gets the lions share of the benefit of the subsidies.
I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing but half the reason these conversations are so circular is that small family farms are not what most agriculture in the US is yet we vote like it is.
I'm not sure the definition of "family" farms, you can have a family name corporation that is still $100M+ in value. Even then I have no idea who all of them are.
My family farm is small enough they alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle, but the land is still worth millions. But they all have notes, good years mean the crop pays the bank and maybe some supplies for next year.
> My family farm is small enough they alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle, but the land is still worth millions.
This makes no financial sense to me. I call this: "asset rich, but cash poor". It is like living in a house that you inherited worth "millions", but working a job that "alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle". Simple solution: Sell the house. Cash out and invest in the stock market or rental real estate. You should do the same. If what you say is really true, then call Dave Ramsey (or someone similar) and ask for their advice. They will say the same.
Small farmers are generally aware that this makes no financial sense. They're participating in a multigenerational family tradition. There are also typically relatives urging those still farming to sell the farm so they can get their share (which may not be that huge, when all is divvied up).
The USDA where I pulled that stat defines it as farms that have less than 1M in income (gross) per year. A farm that makes that much is going to only support at most 1 full time farmer. The further subdivide farms under 350k which clearly falls into some terrible definition of hobby.
Which tracks with my experience. I don’t know any family farmers where farming is their only, or even primary, occupation.
"because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away."
Which only 1h because of federal subsidies as rural communities learn. Without health subsidies many hospitals will close, and it's no longer a 1h drive but a 5h drive.
People often live in a delusion on why things are the why they are - their explanation often is the one that suits them most (also see USAid).
I try to get almost all of my information from long-form interviews. From what I've seen, few people (mostly professional politicians) can lie non-stop for several hours in a row in a consistent fashion.
Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point?
Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).
>farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance
When I see the amount of exploits the wealthy use to avoid taxes and maximize profits, I realize working a 9-5 job is for fools, considering how much taxes I'm paying on my salary.
In my town, a capital city, near my home there is a vape lounge. In the parking lot of this lounge are 3 Ford F-350 King Ranch Dual Rear Wheels, adorned with a small amount of decalling on the side for the vape lounge. Each of these trucks goes for about $80K.
They instead lower taxes for every bracket except those making 2x to 5x the poverty level. The lower brackets are a bribe, and the upper brackets and corporate/payroll tax cuts are the purpose. Meanwhile medicaid getting cut just shifts unpaid er visit costs onto that same middle range. The middle gets hollowed out by both parties.
Pretty much, the whole small farmer trying to make a buck is a huge propaganda push, several companies own millions of acreage.
I feel bad for the smaller farmers for sure but they are vastly overrepresented in the proportional losses because Americans have much less sympathy for large corporations rather than individual business owners. Whats even more frustrating that if you try to read more about this you just get wall after wall about how bill gates owns the most which is patently false
> rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits
This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me:
> Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.
>In truth, Bessent disclosed early in the Trump Administration that he owned several thousand acres of farm land in North Dakota through a limited liability partnership. He was supposed to divest those holdings 90 days after taking office, by April 28.
>In August, government ethics officials warned in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that the secretary failed to comply with the rules and needed to sell the land. Bessent's Treasury ethics officials explained that the "assets are illiquid and not readily marketable."
>The August letter said Bessent "would be recused from particular matters affecting these assets." But that was just weeks before Bessent flew to Malaysia to meet with Chinese counterparts and hash out the framework of a deal that crucially included a commitment to buy American soybeans.
This is nonsense. The US has a 20B USD currency swap agreement with Argentina. Currency swaps aren't free money. It is basically a line of credit between central banks. When you use it, you pay interest on the borrowed money. You would be surprised how many of these exist with the Big Three (US/EU/JP) central banks with other, smaller central banks.
> In October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced U.S. financial support for Argentina, including a $20 billion currency swap line financed through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).
However, there is very little info about how and when Argentina used it. No tin foil hat here: I'm unsure if this lazy reporting, or lack of transparency (intentionally or accidental). Here is the best that I found: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multi...
> Last Friday, Argentina fully repaid the US$2.5 billion it obtained from a US$20-billion swap line with the Trump administration
> “Our nation has been fully repaid while making tens of millions in USD profit for the American taxpayer,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a Friday post on X.
Final point: It seems like everything I read about highly developed nations: All of them have massive gov't subsidies for agriculture which makes sense from a food security (+influence) perspective. Weirdly, it also seems like most people involved in farming are also fiscally conservative and probably vote right of center. Are there any countries where this isn't true? (I think of one -- NZ has little to no farming subsidies now.)
A currency swap absolutely isn't "basically a line of credit". Any swap is a credit agreement insofar as each party is committing to future possible liabilities, but a currency swap is a very standard instrument which is part of central banks' monetary policy toolkit and helps them in their mandate to ensure currency stability. Swaps can be extremely flexible so the terms differ wildly, but they're not generally a line of credit that can be drawn from, they're an agreement to pay or receive amounts based on future movements of some underlying rates.
So what is a currency swap. Well any swap is an agreement with at least two legs, a pay leg and a receive leg. The normal type of swap is a interest rate swap so say I agree to pay you every month 3% fixed interest on 10m USD and you agree to pay me some floating rate (say 3m usd libor + 100bps) interest on the same amount. So every month we do a calculation where if libor+100 is greater than 3 then I pay you otherwise you pay me. We might do this to hedge our interest rate exposure. Like say you're a bank and I'm a bank and most of my borrowers are fixed rate mortgages and most of my savings accounts pay floating rate interest. I want a hedge so the floating rate doesn't end up costing me too much.
A currency swap is like that but with different currencies. So say we change things so it's 10m USD on one side and 15m EUR on the other side and we agree to exchange principal amounts. So that sets an exchange rate of 1.5 as well as the interest rate thing from before. If interest rates or exchange rates now move, this provides a hedge. So the hedge now is not just against the rate changing but also against the currency moving adversely. Central banks use this to ensure the import/export vs domestic balance of their economy is appropriate given the levels of trade between nations and also as a hedge against adverse currency movements affecting both assets they hold (yes they hold bonds etc) and their outstanding debt (which for the Fed will include "Eurobonds" they have issued in other currencies than USD).
High level, yes, I agree that line of credits are different from currency swaps. However, in this case, when Argentina activates the currency swap, they are essentially sending toilet paper (nearly useless currency) to the US Federal Reserve and receiving something very valuable (US dollars). The Argentinan currency does not truly float (they have bizarre official exchange rules), so if the toilet flushes, the US Federal Reserve isn't left with anything useful. In the past (according to a brief Google search), the Central Bank of Korea had a currency swap agreement with the US Federal Reserve (or is it the US Treasury? I always forget those details). In this case, the Korean Won has real international value, so it is much less like a line of credit.
I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push.
Farmers really like their guns, not because they need it to compensate for themselves, but because they really do largely live in areas where the local police response is 30+ minutes because they are in sparsely populated counties that are just farms, farms and more farms.
A very high profile mainstream Republican proposed the most severe anti-gun policy I think anyone at his level ever has: taking guns without due process. And they still voted to reelect him twice. The idea that the GOP is not anti-gun is a fantasy.
> I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push.
Anything specific? Because from where I sit, the Dems aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be wrt to gun control.
Or are you just believing the stuff you're hearing from conservative media? Are you really of the belief that "farmers" need assault rifles? What about bump stocks?
How many school shooting have we had? What legislation came from those? Can you even name any?
I would say 2 bills that won't pass from state assemblies in 2026 (after decades of school shootings) aren't exactly stellar examples of major legislation that has passed to restrict gun ownership.
There's been maybe 1 in the last decade. And really, providing an example of Democrats trying to reign in ghost guns sorta proves my point. You're average citizen can not only buy guns easily, they can make them too!!!!
Nah. This is not true. They voted, because they looked forward the harm to liberals and cities and lgbt and women who dont conform and non whites. They wanted other to be harmed and openly talked about it. They thought they will be harmed only a little, like the last time.
Historically, republicans were not making policies good for them. By they promissed to be cruel and that was appealing.
And every single time there is discussion from liberals talking about rural voters, they have to mention that they know whats best for them, how they vote against their interests. I keep telling them this strategy doesn't work. The smugness is real and all it does is a) push people farther away and b) get everyone who thinks like you to give you internet karma, both worthless.
Ok, let's talk about identity politics. It started with people bringing their religion in to their lawmaking. Let's ditch that first and see what else we need to do.
Removing identity politics? The American right can't shut up about the 'woke agenda', about how the gays/immigrants/foreigners/whomever are destroying the country.
How exactly do you propose to remove identity politics? Do you have any concrete steps for it? Are you going to pull Fox & Friends - the primary drivers of identity politics off the air?
This is a lot of it. Urban liberals see rural working class as backward and racist and uncultured. Just having a non-coastal accent (eg southerners) is treated as a marker of low character in our media. I recall how GW Bush’s accent was treated, as do many rural voters. Look at the discussion here, it’s about “those people” being too dumb to vote for their own interests. Unsurprisingly, people resent that.
It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture.
USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport farm workers. Tarif imports of steel so machine costs go up. Tarif fertilizer so production costs go up. Tarif everything else to reduce consumer spending power.
Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.