95% of Family Farms facing ruin after joining the European Union

wearytrucker22 said:Check this out, then tell me it isn't incompetent farmers instead of an irresponsible state. These guys probably import corn from the Midwest, run a successful hog operation, and then end up selling some of those pigs back into the local market where even folks in the Midwest buy them at Walmart. I picked a standard farm on purpose.

Once you've watched that, you absolutely have to see this:
what the Midwest and the plains look like today compared to what American farmers went through in the '90s.

The video was made as a warning to rural farmers about what happens if the American system gets implemented in the European Union.

If I were running a hog farm, for example, I’d fail miserably. I’ve barely ever seen a live pig in my life. Same goes for you guys—if you tried running my business, you’d go belly up after the first season. You wouldn't even make it through the year before you were drowning in lawsuits over damages and trying to claw back your investments.

Your opening line tells me you completely missed my point.

To be clear, my post wasn't some "it's either the government's fault OR the farmers' fault" type of argument where you have to pick a side and shout, "The state is to blame!"

My actual point is that both parties share the blame. It's the government, and it's also the farmers.

Stop trying to force things into two opposing camps; life doesn't really work that way.

Sam Martinez9 said:Your opening line tells me you completely missed my point.

To be clear, my post wasn't some "it's either the government's fault OR the farmers' fault" type of argument where you have to pick a side and shout, "The state is to blame!"

My actual point is that both parties share the blame. It's the government, and it's also the farmers.

Stop trying to force things into two opposing camps; life doesn't really work that way.

Both parties are at fault, but let's be real—politicians don't have a clue how to actually raise hogs, for instance. Instead, these guys band together just to block highways or demand subsidies; basically, they want quick cash without offering anything in return. Rather than forming actual consortia, clusters, or cooperatives—whatever you want to call them—and sending educated agricultural masters and corporate lawyers to negotiate with the government based on European Union laws, they just act out. And it's not like everyone is incompetent; there are successful farmers out there, they just tend to keep their heads down and do the work.
I've gone bankrupt twice in my life. Is that the government's fault, or is it me and how I managed my business?

wearytrucker22 said:Both parties are at fault, but let's be real—politicians don't have a clue how to actually raise hogs, for instance. Instead, these guys band together just to block highways or demand subsidies; basically, they want quick cash without offering anything in return. Rather than forming actual consortia, clusters, or cooperatives—whatever you want to call them—and sending educated agricultural masters and corporate lawyers to negotiate with the government based on European Union laws, they just act out. And it's not like everyone is incompetent; there are successful farmers out there, they just tend to keep their heads down and do the work.
I've gone bankrupt twice in my life. Is that the government's fault, or is it me and how I managed my business?

Politicians run the country. If they run it, they should at least understand what a farmer actually needs. If they don't have the slightest clue how to manage a nation, then they shouldn't be taking the job in the first place.

For a farmer to truly succeed, they need proper training and education. They need to be taught how to actually operate.

Our school system is a complete mess, and once you graduate, there's basically zero opportunity for further professional development.

The government—meaning the politicians—is responsible for education. Similarly, the state is responsible for major infrastructure, whether it's irrigation, drainage, levees, silos, or cold storage...

If you want to pin a percentage on it, I'd say at least 70 percent of the blame for the current state of agriculture lies with the government, whether directly or indirectly.

Furthermore, all those farmers who actually listened to the government? They're wiped out. Think about the farmers back in 2008 who took out massive loans to build modern facilities for cattle, hogs, or poultry—they went under. The government's math told them they could easily pay back those loans through their labor, but then commodity prices plummeted. They couldn't meet the payments and ended up losing everything.

That’s what happens when you follow the lead of incompetent politicians and a broken state—you end up losing your shirt.

And the politicians aren't going to negotiate for anything, because they have an endless supply of fools defending them—people just like you.

Sam Martinez9 said:It’s honestly a bit tragic. We fought so hard to dismantle socialism and embrace capitalism, yet here we are, a quarter-century later, and people still seem completely lost when it comes to the fundamental rules of how a market economy actually functions.

See, capitalism is driven by efficiency. And you simply cannot achieve efficiency without economies of scale. You aren't going to outproduce someone managing massive tracts of land when you're stuck working a tiny backyard plot. Your unit costs will always be higher. It’s basic math: if you’re raising livestock, your overhead per animal is significantly lower if you're managing a herd of 1,000 compared to someone struggling with just 10.

I could go on, but those are really just the basics.

The bottom line is that those who wanted to make a living in agriculture should have been looking for ways to consolidate their holdings. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the farmer.

That said, the government bears its own share of the blame for sitting on its hands. Instead of investing in essential infrastructure—things like irrigation, drainage systems, cold storage, or silos, which are far more critical than mere subsidies—they did nothing. A state built on laziness and graft inevitably leads to exactly what we are seeing now: systemic decay.

🤔

If having fertile farmland is such a massive upgrade over owning vacation rentals, why don't you two (rowdypilot19 and wearytrucker22) just sell everything, move to the Midwest, and go chase those government subsidies?

It’s honestly absurd watching you try to push this narrative that managing an Airbnb is some grueling ordeal. You clean the place once every ten days, hand off the keys to tourists, and collect the cash. Or, if you're feeling lazy, you just hand over 5-10% to a property management agency to handle the whole thing while you sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.

And then you have the nerve to compare that to agriculture, where you’re grinding for 6 to 9 months a year, putting in well over 100 hours a month just to keep the operation from collapsing. Basically, the rental owners start with an extra 100 hours of free time every month to pick up a second job—or, as is usually the case, to do absolutely nothing. Not to mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like the weather. This year was a nightmare with the drought burning everything to a crisp, whereas on the coast, you’ll get rain 70% of the time like you did three years ago. The rental income stays steady regardless.

Then there’s the overhead. You have to till the land constantly using heavy machinery, which means either renting equipment or shelling out a fortune to own it. And at the end of the day, you actually have to sell the product. Most of the time, you're selling at the border just to break even, or sometimes even at a loss. Those subsidies you love to talk about aren't making people rich; they're just keeping them from drowning. That's the reality, despite the story you two are trying to sell.

How can you even put tourism and farming in the same conversation? Look at how something like Ultra in Split works—scammers hike prices by 200% and fill every room without having invested a single cent more than they did last year. When does that happen in farming? When demand outstrips supply—like during this drought when yields dropped by 50%—does the price skyrocket? No. If the local supply is too low, we just import food from other countries, and the domestic farmers still get stuck with the same old prices.

Sure, there’s a fair percentage of people who went bust because they overleveraged themselves on tractors and combines, or simply because the economy tanked. But what really grinds my gears is the attempt to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.

I don't see what's so confusing about this; we're just talking about basic economics here.

Let’s look at the simplest example possible—imagine you have a pigpen with just one pig. Between electricity, cleaning, water, hauling that water, feed, delivery fees, and labor... let's say your total overhead hits about a hundred bucks.

Now, suppose you add a second pig to that same pen. Certain costs are going to double immediately, like the feed and the water, but others won't budge much at all—things like electricity, delivery services, or your own labor might only go up by maybe 50 percent. When you take the total cost of raising both pigs and divide it by two, the cost per animal actually drops.

For instance, if adding that second pig costs you an extra 70, your total spend is now 170. That brings your cost down to 85 per pig.

There you go. I didn't need a chalkboard to make that point.

Come on, just read what I quoted one more time. Seriously. 😁

Harold Evans4 said:Come on, just read what I quoted one more time. Seriously. 😁

I see. I get it now. I wrote it backwards. My apologies. It was an unintentional mix-up, and I wouldn't want anyone thinking that was actually how it was supposed to be phrased.

It’s just like any other mass production setup—you make peanuts per unit, so you really have to move huge volume to see anything.

Sure, you could go bigger—keeping hundreds of hogs until they're about two years old—but then you're pivoting toward quality and catering to foodies and connoisseurs, kind of like that whole organic farming vibe.
Most folks don't care about that stuff though; they're just chasing the lowest price tag rather than actual quality. That said, people are definitely starting to pay more attention to what they're putting on their plates.

Noah Sullivan said:For hundreds of years, they were considered the hardest workers around, and now, suddenly, they’re labeled "lazy"—doesn't that strike you as a bit suspicious? Look, the reality is that their products (along with a massive array of other goods) simply aren't competitive under current conditions—given an overvalued currency and sky-high interest rates on loans.
Those who *are* actually competitive under these constraints should be rewarded with higher margins,
rather than watching the majority of domestic production wither away while a few barely scrape by. Farmers, for instance, should be receiving low-interest loans stemming directly from primary Federal Reserve emissions, instead of being blamed for failing to compete with those who are profiting from cheap money pumped out by the European Central Bank.

The fault lies, quite clearly, in a nonsensical monetary policy—one that has remained fixed since 1994 despite nothing but poor results.

No, it's more like they're just protected by the government, kind of like those state-owned companies. You know, prices are set in advance, products get overpaid for, and companies just get patched up using the budget... nobody really cared.

And of course, the budget was mostly filled up by the USA and Russia. Well, mostly the USA, specifically.

wearytrucker22 said:You're absolutely right—it hasn't been easy. One single slip-up and one bad review can tank the whole operation. My original plan was to pull in about $6,000 to $7,000 per season. But if you spot a gap in the market and put the work in, you've basically broken even on your initial investment between this year and last. Now, I’ve identified a specific niche paying anywhere from $1,250 to $1,500 a day. Moving forward...

I just spotted an opportunity to pull in about $1,300 to $1,600 a day, but there’s a catch: you need at least $650,000 in capital—or a massive loan—to get off the ground. Honestly, that kind of debt is a joke to ask of regular folks. I’m personally not diving into this until I’ve scraped together 80% to 90% of the cash myself. I say that as a nod to those people out in the Midwest asking for loans just to start production. Sure, getting a bank loan is easy, but you actually have to pay it back, and nobody is giving you any guarantees once things go south. Taking a loan isn't a handout; if you don't have your own skin in the game, you're basically throwing money into the wind and setting yourself up for total ruin. If you don't have the funds, just pack up and head to Denmark to work on some pig farm. Get your experience and build up enough seed money to cover at least 30% of the investment—not counting the land, obviously. When you're playing with your own hard-earned cash, the psychology is completely different than when you're gambling with someone else's money.

Here’s how you actually make it in some small Midwest town with maybe 100 to 500 people.

Get together at some house, grab a beer, and round up your fellow citizens.
Let's get a farming collective off the ground.
Let's get an inventory of the machinery together.
Compile a list of core competencies. You have to know everything—and frankly, you need to understand agricultural production better than any of the competition in the European Union. It’s like how people from Southern California just inherently know how to grow the perfect mandarins or watermelons.
Compile a land registry list.
So, let's say you all decide to pool your resources and jump into large-scale production together—we're talking about hitting a target of, say, 1,000 tons of vegetables.
So, you want a full-scale vegetable harvest schedule mapped out a year in advance, including specific quantities? Fine. Let’s get down to business. You can't just wander into the garden in July and hope for the best; that's how you end up with nothing but dirt and regret. If you want to actually feed people—or at least have enough to stock a pantry—you need a roadmap. Here is how you structure a professional-grade planting and harvest master plan for an American backyard or small farm setup. **Phase 1: The Inventory & Goal Setting (The "What" and "How Much")** Before you touch a shovel, you need to know your numbers. Don't guess. * **Define your yield targets:** Are we talking about feeding a family of four for the summer, or are we trying to preserve enough canned goods to last through a Midwestern winter? * **Calculate by weight or volume:** Instead of saying "I want tomatoes," say "I need 50 pounds of tomatoes." That dictates whether you plant three plants or twenty. * **Analyze your zone:** This isn't one-size-fits-all. Your plan for a garden in Florida is going to look nothing like a plan for a garden in Maine. Determine your USDA Hardiness Zone immediately. **Phase 2: The Seasonal Breakdown (The Timeline)** You need to divide your year into three distinct operational windows. **1. The Early Spring Push (Frost to Late May)** * **Focus:** Cold-hardy crops. Think peas, spinach, radishes, and kale. * **The Math:** These grow fast. If you need 5 lbs of radishes, you can plant them in waves every two weeks to ensure a continuous supply rather than one massive, overwhelming harvest. * **Action:** Get your soil prep done in late February/early March. **2. The Summer Heat Wave (June to August)** * **Focus:** The heavy hitters. Tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, corn, and squash. * **The Math:** This is where your quantity calculations matter most. Corn takes up significant real estate for relatively low caloric density per square foot compared to, say, potatoes. Plan your acreage accordingly. * **Action:** Stagger your plantings. Don't put all your tomato starts in the ground on the same day unless you want 40 pounds of tomatoes rotting on your porch all at once in July. **3. The Autumn Harvest (September to November)** * **Focus:** Root vegetables and brassicas. Carrots, beets, garlic (which gets planted in the fall for next year), and broccoli. * **The Math:** Garlic requires a massive lead time. You plant it now to reap the rewards next summer. * **Action:** This is your cleanup and preservation phase. **Phase 3: Creating the Master Spreadsheet** To do this right, you need a document with these columns: 1. **Crop Name** 2. **Target Quantity** (lbs/oz) 3. **Estimated Yield per Plant** (Research this; don't wing it) 4. **Number of Plants Needed** (Target Quantity ÷ Yield per Plant = Number of Plants) 5. **Planting Date** (Based on your local frost dates) 6. **Expected Harvest Window** **The Bottom Line:** If you aren't calculating based on the actual yield of a single plant, you aren't planning—you're just wishing. Do the math, account for the inevitable pests or a random July drought, and build in a 15% buffer. That’s the only way to actually succeed.
If you can find someone truly capable, send them out across the US and the coastlines to hammer out deals with shopping malls and the big corporations that supply hotels and everything else.
Look, if you’ve got inventory that got trashed because of some crazy weather hitting your supply chain right after you signed a sales contract, don't just sit there staring at the loss. If you actually want to run a business, go out and buy the stock on the open market instead. Grab it, get it moved, and deliver it to your customers five or ten minutes before the deadline hits. That's how you handle it.
Success is a total guarantee if you can pull off 1,000 tons of organic produce every single day. You negotiate the deals now, deliver next year, and you’ll have everything sold off to the Mediterranean market without a single hitch.

Eh, if that’s your only risk, well, I guess... but that isn't really the point here. I don't want to go off on a long tangent, but tourism is pretty much the most sensitive sector we've got.

rustydriver said:If having fertile farmland is such a massive upgrade over owning vacation rentals, why don't you two (rowdypilot19 and wearytrucker22) just sell everything, move to the Midwest, and go chase those government subsidies?

It’s honestly absurd watching you try to push this narrative that managing an Airbnb is some grueling ordeal. You clean the place once every ten days, hand off the keys to tourists, and collect the cash. Or, if you're feeling lazy, you just hand over 5-10% to a property management agency to handle the whole thing while you sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.

And then you have the nerve to compare that to agriculture, where you’re grinding for 6 to 9 months a year, putting in well over 100 hours a month just to keep the operation from collapsing. Basically, the rental owners start with an extra 100 hours of free time every month to pick up a second job—or, as is usually the case, to do absolutely nothing. Not to mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like the weather. This year was a nightmare with the drought burning everything to a crisp, whereas on the coast, you’ll get rain 70% of the time like you did three years ago. The rental income stays steady regardless.

Then there’s the overhead. You have to till the land constantly using heavy machinery, which means either renting equipment or shelling out a fortune to own it. And at the end of the day, you actually have to sell the product. Most of the time, you're selling at the border just to break even, or sometimes even at a loss. Those subsidies you love to talk about aren't making people rich; they're just keeping them from drowning. That's the reality, despite the story you two are trying to sell.

How can you even put tourism and farming in the same conversation? Look at how something like Ultra in Split works—scammers hike prices by 200% and fill every room without having invested a single cent more than they did last year. When does that happen in farming? When demand outstrips supply—like during this drought when yields dropped by 50%—does the price skyrocket? No. If the local supply is too low, we just import food from other countries, and the domestic farmers still get stuck with the same old prices.

Sure, there’s a fair percentage of people who went bust because they overleveraged themselves on tractors and combines, or simply because the economy tanked. But what really grinds my gears is the attempt to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.

Well, I didn't buy farmland, and I don't own any rental units, but I did put some money into this one somewhat alternative kind of farm. I’m actually planning to invest more, I'm just waiting to see if the owner decides to expand again or maybe wants some capital to beef up the warehouse capacity or the silos.

They don't get subsidies.

It honestly feels crazy to me that you guys are trying to push this narrative that it's somehow easier to set up an Airbnb, clean it once every ten days, hand the keys to tourists, and just collect the cash—or better yet, bypass all that by giving 5-10% of the revenue to an agency that handles everything while you literally sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.

Your ROI is going to be garbage and you'll end up failing in the long run. It all looks great on paper, but the US, for example, has really questionable ROI when it comes to tourism. The real question is whether there even is one, if it actually pays off for citizens, and how much.

That's why, personally, I would never invest in that type of tourism today.

The only way it's "profitable" is if you inherited it or snagged it at a massive discount.

Anyway, I'd bet very few farmers would see a meaningful ROI there either.

And then you compare that to agriculture, where you have to work 6 to 9 months a year, like 100+ hours a month, if you don't want everything to fall apart. So, those folks with rental properties basically start out with an extra 100 hours a month they can use for a second job, or, as is often the case, just doing nothing at all. I won't even mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like weather—like this year, where we had a massive drought and everything just scorched, whereas on the coast, it might rain 70% of the time like it did three years ago, so they still have steady income.

What crops are you even talking about? One farmer I knew told me he worked 30 acres of wheat and it only took him about 12 days of work for the whole year. Back then, he understood why wheat is so cheap; you practically have nothing to do.

As for droughts... well, it's like Israel gets rain whenever they need it. ☕

It's funny how farmers in the Sinisco field don't seem to have issues with droughts.

Besides, you have to till all that land constantly using heavy machinery, which means you either have to rent the equipment and pay someone else to run it, or own it yourself. And at the end of the day, you have to sell the product to someone, and most often it's sold at the border just to cover costs, or sometimes even below cost, and that's where those subsidies come in to save them—not so they can live like kings, which is the story you two are trying to push.

So, I mean, with vacation rentals, people basically just rent them out when they see the cash in hand; they aren't really accounting for much else, just take the money and go. That’s the big difference, I guess—those who own rentals actually manage to sell their product. Not everyone is making crazy money, though. Some are, some aren't, so you might be wrong if you think everyone is just raking in massive piles of cash.

Last year, I spent some time at this one farm out in the Midwest, where they grow hazelnuts on less than 25 acres. This guy... he actually has a nicer car than I do, all sorts of heavy machinery, and his house is huge and really well kept. Honestly, his vacation home feels more like a primary residence than a getaway. He’s debt-free and living the dream. He even helps out his kids financially whenever things get tight.

Basically, it’s doable.

How can you even compare tourism to agriculture? Like, look at Ultra in Split—they hike prices by 200% and fill everything up without having invested a single cent more than what they were charging before. When does that happen in farming? Only when demand outweighs supply (like during a drought when yields drop by 50%). But even then, if there's a shortage, we just import food from other countries, and the local farmers' prices stay stuck right where they were.

I mean, not every city is Split, and not every town has an Ultra. Split is pretty much just now discovering what tourism can do, so during this boom, it feels like everything is top-tier and everyone is swimming in money. But really, it’s mostly just going to the most capable people.

Sure, there’s a decent percentage of people who went bust because they bought unnecessary tractors and combines, or just because of the recession itself, but it really bothered me when someone tried to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.

The ROI on the farm I invested in was actually higher than the ROI I could have gotten from tourism. Though, I guess tourism is a way riskier investment overall.

shadowhawk31 said:
Just three days ago, the news hit the media here in America—basically telling us that by the end of June this year, 938 Family Farms had their bank accounts frozen. According to data from the IRS, those folks owe a staggering 414.6 million kuna.

Look, given how many accounts get blocked for all sorts of reasons, this isn't exactly breaking news in America. But there’s a deeper story buried under these numbers—one that really exposes why the folks living out in the rural areas are getting squeezed dry.

The "Unified Account Register" shows there are 8,226 active accounts belonging to these Family Farms, and as of late June, about 11.4% of them are currently blocked. Some people are spinning this as "good news"—claiming that compared to the end of the first half of 2016, the number of blocked farms has dropped by 60, and total debt has dipped by 2.7 percent over the last year. Give me a break.

This brings me back to those negotiations for joining the European Union. I remember watching an agricultural program on Sunday after the Diary, where some self-proclaimed "expert" was sitting there explaining that back then, about 150,000 families were involved in farming—some just doing it as a side hustle—and he called the whole situation "unsustainable."

The big recommendation? They said we needed to "bring order" to the agricultural sector. The plan was to "trim down" the number of households professionally farming to just 50,000. Of course, they sold it as this grand vision where everyone would meet high European Union standards, ensuring top-tier quality and keeping things competitive on the market.

Fast forward nearly ten years, and we don't even have 50,000 farms left—we've plummeted to just 8,226. Who knows how many others are still scratching out a living with farming as a side gig and trying to sell their goods? It's anyone's guess. Either way, mission accomplished, I guess. The agricultural sector is on life support, and people have either walked away from their land, sold it off, or been squeezed out entirely.


https://www.logicno.com/ekonomija/po...og-naroda.html

So, what’s the verdict? How did joining the European Union actually impact agriculture in America, and who should we really hold accountable for this mess?

I think you've got the wrong idea here.

We actually have around 100,000 Family Farms collecting subsidies.

The only ones going broke are the ones who took out loans. Everyone else can just scale back production until they're barely scraping by on a tiny patch of pasture or hayfield, and they'll still be pulling in those subsidies.

Sam Martinez9 said:It’s honestly a bit tragic. We fought so hard to dismantle socialism and embrace capitalism, yet here we are, a quarter-century later, and people still seem completely lost when it comes to the fundamental rules of how a market economy actually functions.

See, capitalism is driven by efficiency. And you simply cannot achieve efficiency without economies of scale. You aren't going to outproduce someone managing massive tracts of land when you're stuck working a tiny backyard plot. Your unit costs will always be higher. It’s basic math: if you’re raising livestock, your overhead per animal is significantly lower if you're managing a herd of 1,000 compared to someone struggling with just 10.

I could go on, but those are really just the basics.

The bottom line is that those who wanted to make a living in agriculture should have been looking for ways to consolidate their holdings. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the farmer.

That said, the government bears its own share of the blame for sitting on its hands. Instead of investing in essential infrastructure—things like irrigation, drainage systems, cold storage, or silos, which are far more critical than mere subsidies—they did nothing. A state built on laziness and graft inevitably leads to exactly what we are seeing now: systemic decay.

That is the crux of the issue, though I would argue that excessive paperwork, heavy taxation, and the lack of proper education for rural workers are equally to blame. If we don't immediately start focusing on making our farmers competitive, the entire agricultural sector in America will collapse, and it’s going to take a lifetime to rebuild it from the ground up.🕺

rustydriver said:If having fertile farmland is such a massive upgrade over owning vacation rentals, why don't you two (rowdypilot19 and wearytrucker22) just sell everything, move to the Midwest, and go chase those government subsidies?

It’s honestly absurd watching you try to push this narrative that managing an Airbnb is some grueling ordeal. You clean the place once every ten days, hand off the keys to tourists, and collect the cash. Or, if you're feeling lazy, you just hand over 5-10% to a property management agency to handle the whole thing while you sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.

And then you have the nerve to compare that to agriculture, where you’re grinding for 6 to 9 months a year, putting in well over 100 hours a month just to keep the operation from collapsing. Basically, the rental owners start with an extra 100 hours of free time every month to pick up a second job—or, as is usually the case, to do absolutely nothing. Not to mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like the weather. This year was a nightmare with the drought burning everything to a crisp, whereas on the coast, you’ll get rain 70% of the time like you did three years ago. The rental income stays steady regardless.

Then there’s the overhead. You have to till the land constantly using heavy machinery, which means either renting equipment or shelling out a fortune to own it. And at the end of the day, you actually have to sell the product. Most of the time, you're selling at the border just to break even, or sometimes even at a loss. Those subsidies you love to talk about aren't making people rich; they're just keeping them from drowning. That's the reality, despite the story you two are trying to sell.

How can you even put tourism and farming in the same conversation? Look at how something like Ultra in Split works—scammers hike prices by 200% and fill every room without having invested a single cent more than they did last year. When does that happen in farming? When demand outstrips supply—like during this drought when yields dropped by 50%—does the price skyrocket? No. If the local supply is too low, we just import food from other countries, and the domestic farmers still get stuck with the same old prices.

Sure, there’s a fair percentage of people who went bust because they overleveraged themselves on tractors and combines, or simply because the economy tanked. But what really grinds my gears is the attempt to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.

The kind of rental you're describing pulls in maybe $60 to $200 tops in places like Miami or LA.
You can tell by my rates that I’m not running apartments—I’m running rooms. The price is high because I provide actual value (and no, I don't mean food). I'm up working for an hour before the guests even wake up, and I don't hit the sack until after they do. My workday is a minimum of 18 hours. Taking guests out to restaurants is work, too; I have to play host, translate, explain things, blah, blah, blah.

Midwest farming (for most people, anyway) is child's play.
Some guy plows 100 acres in ten days, sows his Wheat, harvests it, and collects his government subsidies. $75000 If he's unlucky enough for the crop to actually grow, he has to harvest it, haul it to the buyer, and then spend his time complaining about low prices and blocking highways.

wearytrucker22 said:The kind of rental you're describing pulls in maybe $60 to $200 tops in places like Miami or LA.
You can tell by my rates that I’m not running apartments—I’m running rooms. The price is high because I provide actual value (and no, I don't mean food). I'm up working for an hour before the guests even wake up, and I don't hit the sack until after they do. My workday is a minimum of 18 hours. Taking guests out to restaurants is work, too; I have to play host, translate, explain things, blah, blah, blah.

Midwest farming (for most people, anyway) is child's play.
Some guy plows 100 acres in ten days, sows his Wheat, harvests it, and collects his government subsidies. $75000 If he's unlucky enough for the crop to actually grow, he has to harvest it, haul it to the buyer, and then spend his time complaining about low prices and blocking highways.

You're finally starting to see how the game is played. 😁

The thing is, they plant the Wheat mostly for crop rotation purposes. So, out of that massive acreage, maybe only a fraction actually matters.

The rest? They're planting whatever cash crop keeps the profit margins high.

Jerry Clark72 said:You're finally starting to see how the game is played. 😁

The thing is, they plant the Wheat mostly for crop rotation purposes. So, out of that massive acreage, maybe only a fraction actually matters.

The rest? They're planting whatever cash crop keeps the profit margins high.

And yeah, they actually have to put in the work—spraying crops, fertilizing, buying the seed.
But because of how they mess around with the Wheat, America's tourism industry ends up paying the price, since bakery products become a total disaster. High-end restaurants and pizzerias end up sourcing their flour from abroad just to keep their doors open.
You can't bake a decent pizza with local wheat, let alone make anything remotely tasty when it comes to bread or pastries.

rowdypilot19 said:Well, I didn't buy farmland, and I don't own any rental units, but I did put some money into this one somewhat alternative kind of farm. I’m actually planning to invest more, I'm just waiting to see if the owner decides to expand again or maybe wants some capital to beef up the warehouse capacity or the silos.

They don't get subsidies.

It honestly feels crazy to me that you guys are trying to push this narrative that it's somehow easier to set up an Airbnb, clean it once every ten days, hand the keys to tourists, and just collect the cash—or better yet, bypass all that by giving 5-10% of the revenue to an agency that handles everything while you literally sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.

Your ROI is going to be garbage and you'll end up failing in the long run. It all looks great on paper, but the US, for example, has really questionable ROI when it comes to tourism. The real question is whether there even is one, if it actually pays off for citizens, and how much.

That's why, personally, I would never invest in that type of tourism today.

The only way it's "profitable" is if you inherited it or snagged it at a massive discount.

Anyway, I'd bet very few farmers would see a meaningful ROI there either.

And then you compare that to agriculture, where you have to work 6 to 9 months a year, like 100+ hours a month, if you don't want everything to fall apart. So, those folks with rental properties basically start out with an extra 100 hours a month they can use for a second job, or, as is often the case, just doing nothing at all. I won't even mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like weather—like this year, where we had a massive drought and everything just scorched, whereas on the coast, it might rain 70% of the time like it did three years ago, so they still have steady income.

What crops are you even talking about? One farmer I knew told me he worked 30 acres of wheat and it only took him about 12 days of work for the whole year. Back then, he understood why wheat is so cheap; you practically have nothing to do.

As for droughts... well, it's like Israel gets rain whenever they need it. ☕

It's funny how farmers in the Sinisco field don't seem to have issues with droughts.

Besides, you have to till all that land constantly using heavy machinery, which means you either have to rent the equipment and pay someone else to run it, or own it yourself. And at the end of the day, you have to sell the product to someone, and most often it's sold at the border just to cover costs, or sometimes even below cost, and that's where those subsidies come in to save them—not so they can live like kings, which is the story you two are trying to push.

So, I mean, with vacation rentals, people basically just rent them out when they see the cash in hand; they aren't really accounting for much else, just take the money and go. That’s the big difference, I guess—those who own rentals actually manage to sell their product. Not everyone is making crazy money, though. Some are, some aren't, so you might be wrong if you think everyone is just raking in massive piles of cash.

Last year, I spent some time at this one farm out in the Midwest, where they grow hazelnuts on less than 25 acres. This guy... he actually has a nicer car than I do, all sorts of heavy machinery, and his house is huge and really well kept. Honestly, his vacation home feels more like a primary residence than a getaway. He’s debt-free and living the dream. He even helps out his kids financially whenever things get tight.

Basically, it’s doable.

How can you even compare tourism to agriculture? Like, look at Ultra in Split—they hike prices by 200% and fill everything up without having invested a single cent more than what they were charging before. When does that happen in farming? Only when demand outweighs supply (like during a drought when yields drop by 50%). But even then, if there's a shortage, we just import food from other countries, and the local farmers' prices stay stuck right where they were.

I mean, not every city is Split, and not every town has an Ultra. Split is pretty much just now discovering what tourism can do, so during this boom, it feels like everything is top-tier and everyone is swimming in money. But really, it’s mostly just going to the most capable people.

Sure, there’s a decent percentage of people who went bust because they bought unnecessary tractors and combines, or just because of the recession itself, but it really bothered me when someone tried to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.

The ROI on the farm I invested in was actually higher than the ROI I could have gotten from tourism. Though, I guess tourism is a way riskier investment overall.

The only issue is crop rotation; you simply cannot plant Wheat in a monoculture indefinitely. 😉

wearytrucker22 said:And yeah, they actually have to put in the work—spraying crops, fertilizing, buying the seed.
But because of how they mess around with the Wheat, America's tourism industry ends up paying the price, since bakery products become a total disaster. High-end restaurants and pizzerias end up sourcing their flour from abroad just to keep their doors open.
You can't bake a decent pizza with local wheat, let alone make anything remotely tasty when it comes to bread or pastries.

It definitely hurts. Honestly, they should just import it like everything else. What's the big deal?

You could easily blame the European Union and those subsidy policies. It basically incentivizes doing absolutely nothing.

wearytrucker22 said:And yeah, they actually have to put in the work—spraying crops, fertilizing, buying the seed.
But because of how they mess around with the Wheat, America's tourism industry ends up paying the price, since bakery products become a total disaster. High-end restaurants and pizzerias end up sourcing their flour from abroad just to keep their doors open.
You can't bake a decent pizza with local wheat, let alone make anything remotely tasty when it comes to bread or pastries.

There are roughly twenty different varieties of wheat out there, though the most common one planted is Triticum aestivum, which generally splits into specific types meant for bread versus those intended for pastries.🕺

neonhound18 said:The only issue is crop rotation; you simply cannot plant Wheat in a monoculture indefinitely. 😉

And honestly, that’s the catch for all of them, right? Because once they're done with the Wheat, they actually need to have something else lined up to work on.