I'm in Wisconsin and if I drive on a county road, I see signs near the road that say "Save our S̶o̶l̶a̶r̶ Farms". Maybe some are fine with them, but seems like lots of internal pressure to say no or unfortunate reasons.
They may feel like grassroots campaigns to save farms, but much of it is backing from large corporate interests. Doesn't mean that there aren't legit concerns, but the sponsorship makes me weary.
Is it affordable because they are dumping though? Or is it because of the slave labor? Or is it cheap because they freely pollute the air water and land? Or maybe all of the above? I would personally love to see a full ban on imports from countries unless they are at parity with US environmental/labor/trade laws.
An interesting take. What happens for all the things where US laws and policy are worse (“below standard”) for many developed countries, which are plenty?
My point isn’t that the US is great at everything (it’s clearly not), it’s that putting restrictions on US businesses while trading with places that don’t have the restrictions is moronic. It puts US businesses at a disadvantage and then still has the negative effect the regulations were trying to prevent in many cases (e.g. air pollution, water pollution, abuse of workers if you care about Chinese people too and don’t want to support their abuse, etc).
I don't get it… isn't up to the landowner whether they farm corn, soybeans, or solar radiation? The government may provide different incentives for each, but AFAIK, they aren't forcing a choice.
Depending on the state, not enough to matter. Farmers are not a major voting block in most of the US anymore. Farmers are a bit over 1% of the US population. I'm trying to find better sources than listicle type things, but the best I can find is that in the states with the highest percentage of farmers, it's still only 5-6% of their state population.
That can be enough to swing things, but it's not enough to be the deciding block that many think they are. A century ago things were much different.
This is very wrong: farmers still have incredibly outsized influence in American politics, mostly to our detriment. We have a number of horrible policies (ethanol subsidies, HFCS in everything, tons of inexplicable restrictions on food stamps, water policy in the west emptying all the aquifers) that are entirely because of lobbying by farmers, and the Farm Bill distributes between 70 and 100 billion per year, much of it well-spent but also with a great deal of graft and patronage because of farming lobbying.
And even that is probably an optimistic number for what most people would consider a "farmer." It always irks me when people are blaming farmers for the polices of farm counties when the vast majority of voters in those communities have nothing at all to do with farming.
Someone can be more specific and accurate with this, but in the US, population percentages don't vote. Or in other words, some votes are worth more than others. So relying entirely on % of population isn't a great measure.
That's a fair point. By the numbers, about 60% of voters turned out in the last election. Historically, though, we've had lower turnouts. Let's say that nationally only 50% turned out but all farmers voted. That would make their 1+% block closer to 2-3% of the votes for an election which is more significant.
Iowa was listed as 63% urban in the 2020 census. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. An area needs 2000 housing units and/or 5000 people to be counted as urban. If you’ve been through the state, you’ll see lots of tiny little 2000-3000 person towns that have an urban street grid around a couple-block downtown core. These things don’t get counted as urban.
The farmland is too valuable for you to see much of any sprawl except in Des Moines and Iowa City. Even Council Bluffs (the Iowa side of the Omaha metro) has very little for the metro size.
