Time To Think Outside The Box

I have several ideas on how to improve our economy and overall quality of life here in the U.S., so I'm going to be writing a series of threads to evaluate each idea individually instead of trying to address them all in one thread.

First I would nationalize our fishing and farming industries.

Now for those of you who just spit coffee all over your monitor, yelling "He's a damn socialist commie! Get a rope!"...
I ask that you hear me out and you just might learn something.

The reason I would do this is because while doing a little research on our workforce, I stumbled upon a very interesting statistic. Did you know that there are only 408,000 people working in the fishing, farming, and forestry industries combined? Seriously, that's all. If you don't believe me, see for yourself...

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Think about that for a minute... all of our produce, our meats, our dairy products, seafood, etc. Are you kidding me? Only 408,000 people produce all of this. That has got to be the most productive workforce on Earth! (There are at least 1million people making iphone 5's right now, and that's just in China alone)

I would have the government pay these people directly and make the fruits of their labor free to everyone except restaurants. The cost of doing this would amount to a mere blip on our taxes and the benefits would save the average American family about $500-$800 a month.

Yes, people will splurge and hoard, and rush to the grocery stores to empty the shelves, but only at first. Once everyone stuffs their freezers and cabinets, and their new reality sets in, demand will drop drastically.

reply to post by Bone75


That is only the documented ones, I am sure it is probably triple that if they counted all the under the table laborers.

More on topic, I don't think nationalizing anything is a good idea. The government can't even handle what it is supposed to be handling now, putting more on their plate doesn't seem like a good idea.

reply to post by Bone75


Your data you are presenting is not complete...unless you go to your own link, and click on the links that lead to the actual numbers of jobs that *support* each category....this is just a small excerpt from your link. You need to click on the support activities links to see how much, and the numbers of people involved in each industry.

Industry profile for this occupation: Top

Industries with the highest published employment and wages for this occupation are provided. For a list of all industries with employment in this occupation, see the Create Customized Tables function.

Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation:
Industry Employment (1) Percent of industry employment Hourly mean wage Annual mean wage (2)
Support Activities for Crop Production 220,450 74.54 $9.72 $20,230
Logging 28,340 58.31 $17.96 $37,360
Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 19,440 5.88 $12.07 $25,110
Support Activities for Animal Production 14,460 53.92 $13.02 $27,080
State Government (OES Designation) 13,080 0.58 $16.95 $35,260

Industries with the highest concentration of employment in this occupation:
Industry Employment (1) Percent of industry employment Hourly mean wage Annual mean wage (2)
Support Activities for Crop Production 220,450 74.54 $9.72 $20,230
Logging 28,340 58.31 $17.96 $37,360
Support Activities for Animal Production 14,460 53.92 $13.02 $27,080
Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers 12,930 17.19 $11.67 $24,280
Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores 12,030 8.77 $11.23 $23,350

Top paying industries for this occupation:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Bone75

 

That is only the documented ones, I am sure it is probably triple that if they counted all the under the table laborers.

So send them back to central and south America and replace them with people who are ordered to pay child support or restitution, but can't find employment.

I can tell you that when I lived in the far north, being northern Wisconsin about 30 miles south of Duluth Minnesota, that there were many openings in this field. I applied, to do office work. Guess what? Unless you are related to somebody, or know somebody who is already employed, you don't get the job, as is with many other governmental positions. It's "Who you know, and not what you know."

If we could get rid of the nepotism, and good 'ole boy attitudes in these types of positions, then maybe we could do something about what you propose.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Bone75

 

Your data you are presenting is not complete...unless you go to your own link, and click on the links that lead to the actual numbers of jobs that *support* each category....this is just a small excerpt from your link. You need to click on the support activities links to see how much, and the numbers of people involved in each industry.

Well by my interpretation of the data, the support activities are included in the total number of workers. If I'm reading it wrong, could you maybe give me a more accurate number?

reply to post by Bone75

Very interesting, thank you for posting this.

I looked at your source, of course your number is correct, but there is a footnote attached. It says the 409,500 figure does not include the self-employed. So if a farmer sells his grain to a co-op, I don't think he would be counted in the total. That may matter, or it may not. I'll leave it for later.

But to your other number, saving the average American family $500-$800 a month. For convenience in calculating (and because I think the number is correct) lets assume the average family has a little more than 3.1 people. That would mean we have 100,000,000 families in the US. With your savings assumption, we would be saving 50-80 billion dollars a month. Roughly 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year. Forgive me, but that doesn't sound too likely.

Now look at the workers. Your source says the average annual wage is $24,300. Multiply that by the 409,500 workers and you get just a spit under $10 billion a year. So your proposal, and figures, would have the government spending $10 billion in order to save $750 billion? Something's not working out.

But again, it's a fascinating idea that we can work with for a while.

(My own feeling is that we're not accounting for the truckers and the store keepers and the farm implement salesmen, etc. Will we pay their salaries, too? Further, what does this do to food waste and consumer demand?)

reply to post by charles1952


I'm sure the numbers I provided are ultra-conservative, but I'm simply citing our governments official numbers. Let's say the actual numbers (including the transportation of the goods) are 10 times that...
by your calculations we would still be saving 650B a year.

reply to post by Bone75

Dear Bone75,

Thanks for your patience, I really didn't do a very good job of explaining myself.

To me, there seems to be a lot missing. I think you're saying that if the taxpayers got together to pay the farmer's wages, then food could be free. Doesn't that just ring a little false? Where is that $500-$800 a month per family going now? And how does paying the farmer's wages eliminate that?

I believe that there are many other costs that drive up the price. Pick almost anything, say, bread. We pay the farmer's wages, but do we also pay his bill for property tax, water, seed, fertilizer, machinery, fuel, buildings, etc.? And that only gives us grain.

The grain has to be trucked to a mill, and processed into flour with all of the expenses involved. Workers, electricity, equipment and repairs, taxes, etc. Then, truck it again to a bakery (and all this trucking around costs), where they go through the same expenses plus packaging it up nicely. Then truck it to a warehouse, then to a store. There are people and taxes at each step, and every step has to involve at least a small profit.

If the only money we put into this production is the farmer's wages, the whole system will screech to a halt in it's first year, or so it seems to me.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Bone75

 

Dear Bone75,

Thanks for your patience, I really didn't do a very good job of explaining myself.

To me, there seems to be a lot missing. I think you're saying that if the taxpayers got together to pay the farmer's wages, then food could be free. Doesn't that just ring a little false? Where is that $500-$800 a month per family going now? And how does paying the farmer's wages eliminate that?

I believe that there are many other costs that drive up the price. Pick almost anything, say, bread. We pay the farmer's wages, but do we also pay his bill for property tax, water, seed, fertilizer, machinery, fuel, buildings, etc.? And that only gives us grain.

The grain has to be trucked to a mill, and processed into flour with all of the expenses involved. Workers, electricity, equipment and repairs, taxes, etc. Then, truck it again to a bakery (and all this trucking around costs), where they go through the same expenses plus packaging it up nicely. Then truck it to a warehouse, then to a store. There are people and taxes at each step, and every step has to involve at least a small profit.

If the only money we put into this production is the farmer's wages, the whole system will screech to a halt in it's first year, or so it seems to me.

With respect,
Charles1952

I too must not be doing a good job of explaining myself, so thank you for at least entertaining the idea and engaging in this discussion anyways.

I'd like to emphasize the fact that I said we should NATIONALIZE the FISHING and FARMING industries and that we should make the fruits of THEIR labor free for everyone. I didn't say we should nationalize the entire food industry (not yet anyways). I'm not trying to be condescending, but bread is neither grown on a farm nor pulled from the ocean.

By nationalizing these industries, I mean that the government should own the means of production as well. The farms, the boats, the tractors, etc. When you have the means of production in place (which we already do) then the cost of labor and maintaining equipment is all that's left.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see these industries in the hands of the government for the good of the people, rather than the hands of corporations such as Monsanto who are in it for profit.

I don't think that nationalizing food production in the US is a good idea - for all of the reasons mentioned above.

Also, please remember that a good portion of our food is imported from other countries:
www.fdaimports.com...
20% of US food is imported.
70% of seafood is imported.
35% of produce is imported.

So, if our government controlled the US supplied portion, there would still be a significant portion of seafood and produce that is not covered under this nationalization model suggested.

Originally posted by Bone75

I'm not trying to be condescending, but bread is neither grown on a farm nor pulled from the ocean.

The main ingredients in bread are grown on farms

reply to post by Bone75

Dear Bone75,

Ok, so let me try another approach to understanding you. As my signature says, I'm not the sharpest bulb in the drawer.

Are you saying that the government would buy all the farms and fisheries, plus their related equipment? That's going to be an expensive blow to the taxpayers, but, oh well. Then we arrange for government workers to work the farms, and I can assure you that will be much more expensive than Ma and Pa Kettle. The government will also have to contract for all the supplies and equipment maintenance. I hope they don't find a campaign contributor who sells them $600 hammers.

So all that is worked out and we're left with sheaves of wheat sitting on the farm, or piles of fish dumped off a dock onto shore. What happens then? Do companies come down to pick it up for free then process it for free? (Remember the consumers won't pay for the finished product.) Do thousand of citizens come to the farm and fill their pickup trucks with wheat? I don't live near an ocean, does that mean I can't enjoy seafood anymore?

How do I get a lobster from Maine to my plate without having to pay for it? I hope you're not suggesting that the taxpayer has to pay for all the food from farm to plate, and that it will all be controlled by our government. Wages, profits, types of food, etc. to be set by a clerk in D. C.?

With respect,
Charles1952