The Conundrum of Money & Farming

We need to change the system

Photo of field and tractor by Petar Milošević, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Hundred dollar bill image added by author.

When farmers make bad choice like spraying poison, killing wildlife, abusing natural resources, etc., the justification is nearly always financial. Making money is prioritized over healthy choices and respecting the more-than-human world. The tragic results are manifestly apparent around the whole world and include environmental toxicity, declining wildlife populations, topsoil loss, aquifer depletion, ocean dead zones and last but not least habitat destruction. Agriculture is the biggest contributor to habitat destruction, and habitat destruction is by far the leading cause of species endangerment.

For some farmers, this is due to greed of course, but in other instances, individuals are merely trying to get by practicing a livelihood. In the first case, significant limitations need to be brought to bear both through strict regulation and social pressure. In the second, we need to find ways of supporting farmers so they are not driven to bad choices.

How about a UBI for farmers? UBI stands for “universal basic income” and has been pitched by various figures in recent years, including some in the tech sector who want to keep Capitalism intact but ensure that people made jobless by AI etc. still have money to spend in the economy.

If this is all we can manage to do, it would be better than the current situation. Farmers would have a “floor” to depend on, and know they could still pay their bills and feed themselves if their crop fails, as long as they're not making bad choices. Because though such a program would require sustainable practices, it would also provide equipment, supplies and education for such methods, in part by re-prioritizing agricultural subsidies which currently go predominantly to Big Ag.

Realistically, such a UBI would also need to be provided to farm workers. Not many people are aware that agricultural work is exempted from a lot of labor law, like requiring overtime pay. This was part of the devil's bargain made during the Depression when much of such law was institutionalized. Farm work, along with domestic work, was exempted because the labor force was mostly people of color. California agriculture, for example, has always depended on migrant workers, going back to the 19th Century. It's nothing new that the fields are full of “Mexicans” (who of course are from many other countries too, though NAFTA definitely led to a surge in Mexican workers because that agreement led to many of them losing their land).

When you hear people in media bemoaning the fact that “Americans” (by which they usually mean white people) don't want to work farm jobs, and that's why so many “illegals” are hired, the part they leave out is that those jobs pay so little, especially considering how strenuous and dangerous they are. It would be much more honest to say, “Americans don't want to work farm jobs at that pay and under those conditions” but of course they don't put it that way because they like pushing this “laziness” narrative.

A nationwide farmworkers' union is also needed. A regional example in Oregon, PCUN (Pineros Y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), has successfully pushed for improvements, in cooperation with allies in local faith communities. Other examples exist so we're not starting from scratch.

Still, a farmer UBI would only benefit current farmers, and we need far, far more farmers if we want to make the whole system more sustainable. Why do we need more farmers? Because we need many small farms distributed throughout the country. For several decades, the trend has been towards fewer, larger farms, and we must reverse that. The smaller the farm, the more easily it can be de-mechanized, which produces less carbon (not just through lower emissions from machines, but also lower releases from mechanical tillage), and also allows for kinder and more thoughtful treatment of the land and its more-than-human denizens overall. Also, the project of re-localizing agriculture and bringing an end to the 1200 mile salad would best be accomplished by networks of small operations working closely with their customers and markets.

Bringing in new farmers will require providing them with farm land, and this is where it will get sticky for some people and certain business interests. Since virtually all the good farmland is already taken—and we don't want to wipe out more wildlife habitat, especially for land that's sub-par for agriculture anyway—we will have to divide large farms into smaller ones. Yes, there is unused or fallow farmland all over the place but it belongs to someone. After studying and participating in agriculture in the US for over 20 years, and observing all its inequities, I now understand why socialist revolutions often institute land reform right off the bat, redistributing from elites to peasants. Cuz it needs to happen. Without going that far, we do have eminent domain in our current system, but obviously it's best if these transactions are as consensual as possible, if only because it's preferable for everyone in close proximity with each other to get along. Practically speaking, new farmers would benefit from the experience and knowledge about their newly acquired parcel from its previous stewards. As I mentioned in a previous essay, an Oregon farmer once told me, "When you're learning how to farm a piece of land, you're learning how to farm that piece of land." Every spot has its own idiosyncrasies.

In a lot of cases, it might just be a matter of offering current land owners whatever it takes, even if that's well above current market value. It's not like we don't have the money. Personally, I'm all for reducing the military budget by 90% and applying the liberated funds to projects like this. Call it the “Ploughshares Windfall” (as in “beating swords into ploughshares”).

“Large” as in “large farms” is a relative quantity. In a particular agricultural valley that I'm familiar with, there's a farm that's only about 160 acres, which is small by national standards, but it is a prime piece along the river with the oldest (and therefore most reliable) water rights. Though the owners have been leasing a couple acres to some younger people for the last few years, the majority of it is in irrigated alfalfa. Because the owners are getting older, they're not even managing it well for hay anymore—as in, not even getting all the cuttings out of it they could—so it's just providing for a couple dozen cows whose calves they sell every year. This is a tremendous waste of water and field space that several to many small-scale farmers could be using much more effectively to serve the local community and the region.

Which raises another touchy point. If we implement a farmer UBI, does it just automatically go to everyone who currently calls themselves a farmer no matter what they're doing? I would be opposed to seeing it support cotton operations in Arizona, alfalfa in the southern California desert, or grass seed in the Willamette Valley, all of which are arguably frivolous. What about tobacco farmers? We could limit the program to farmers growing food crops that are well-suited to their regions, but what about medicinal herbs? They're essential too, in my opinion. But what about Cannabis? Or hops for beer or grapes for wine? In the cases of these last three, perhaps a less stressful society would lead to lowered urges to numb ourselves and then their overall footprint could be greatly reduced. And what about animal ag? By any reasonable metric, we overproduce meat in the US, with about one quarter of all beef being wasted annually. That’s one cow in four that might as well be going right into the dumpster after it’s slaughtered. So then I guess we're talking about quotas or something similar and that gets really difficult. Who decides and how? Take a vote right now, and I'm guessing cheeseburgers won't take a big hit, even though as a meal it’s a disaster for the planet.

I do believe that people can change their habits though. Historically, it often takes a crisis of some kind for that to happen. What's ironic is that we are already in the midst of multiple crises—extinctions, habitat destruction, depleting resources, toxicity, etc., not to mention climate change—but collectively are unaware. Which includes most farmers I've met, who are either too close-minded or overworked or both, to be seeing the big picture clearly, let alone consider anything different.

What's clear to me, anyway, is that the longer we allow farming to depend on profit, the worse off we're going to be. Every single day, I find myself hoping that awareness will dawn for enough people in our society that change will be birthed, not just for farming, but for the whole kit and kaboodle. I am trying to play some part in that through media like this.