This post says big farms are more efficient when capital is important; small farms when labor is more important.
It makes intuitive sense: if you're doing small plots with hand tools, the expertise and attention of the tool wielder is important. If you're doing thousands of acress with equipment worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, the ability of the tractor driver is less important than getting the most use out of the equipment.
This report says the federal government doesn't get good marks for its services. But USDA is one of the highest ranking departments. Meanwhile I remember seeing the results of a survey of employee satisfaction within different agencies--IIRC USDA scored near the bottom.
Why? I'd suggest part of the answer might be this: farmers served by FSA seem usually to have close relationships with their local office--that was my impression early on in the 1970s and it seems to be continuing now, judging by the Facebook FSA group. But the local employees seem often to be unhappy with the national office; again I think it was true in the 70s and remains so now. (More accurately I think the employees are ambivalent, so they might easily voice discontent on a survey while being more balanced in a face-to-face.
Granted FSA is only a small part of USDA but the dynamic might well work for most of the agencies. My guess anyway.
I've seen a few polls online trying to determine which states people would include in the "Midwest". There's no unanimity, just a core of states almost everyone would include (those beginning with "I") plus others--is Ohio in, how about western PA? Is Nebraska in or out, etc.?
It struck me this morning that the term "Midwest" has a similar relationship to the geography and society found in that general area as the term "race" has to the people who might be included in a specific "race".
This is all in the context of discussions of whether "race" is "real"--many on the left would say race isn't real. I think it's real in some sense, but once you start defining it you find the concept fuzzy and sometimes evanescent.
I'm a bit skeptical of the commonly used statistic that we waste x percent of the food we grow/produce (where x usually is 30 or more).
I'm not sure of the units of measurement--is it calories, volume, weight? It makes a difference.
And what is counted--if considering volume or weight, do you include the skins of bananas or the rinds of citrus?
And what is "waste"? Is corn grown for ethanol wasted? Are animal parts used for pet food wasted?
Until I read this twitter thread I wasn't aware we now had this many vaccinations for the early years. I wonder how many other shots come up later in life?
I post this regularly, and many express surprise.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) January 27, 2022
This is the current childhood immunization schedule. Many childhood vaccines are three+ doses, sometimes a booster.
This is one reason why, unlike earlier centuries, we don't have cemeteries full of children. We've forgotten. pic.twitter.com/H01WqNg7uj
My cousin and I were remembering the old days of genealogic research. I never did any before the internet, but my sister devoted much of a year in 1978 or so to researching, particularly my paternal grandmother's ancestry--the Rippeys. My cousin started seriously in the late 1980's.
If you could measure the productivity of research you'd probably count facts--names, relationship, and dates. In the days of visiting archives and viewing microfilm you might spend days to establish the bare facts for one ancestor. Now in the days of the internet, of digitized records, and of genealogical databases like Ancestry.com it's possible to trace the ancestry of one person going back to 1850 or before over a weekend, which might include 32 people with lots of details..
The increase in productivity is amazing.
The downside is this: because a genealogy once researched is more likely than not to be valid for recent centuries, there's a diminishing field to explore--at least for white Europeans. Means new researchers won't know the satisfactions experienced by their elders.
FiveThirtyEight has a discussion on whether Trump is losing strength.
Although I'd like to see him run in 2024 because I think he'd be beatable (a poll today shows him being beaten by Biden by 10 points), I don't think Dems will be that lucky.
Why: he's not developing any platform of ideas, or particularly responding to change. What seems to get him going is his grievances over 2020 which is starting to get old. If it feels dated now, think what it will feel like in 2 more years.
This post at Econofact notes the drop in immigration, and relates it to our current economy:
Due to increased restrictions on immigration and travel, which began with the COVID-19 pandemic in the early months of 2020, the net inflow of immigrants into the United States has essentially halted for almost 2 years. By the end of 2021 there were about 2 million fewer working-age immigrants living in the United States than there would have been if the pre-2020 immigration trend had continued unchanged. Of these lost immigrants, about one million would have been college educated. The data on labor shortages across industries suggest that this dramatic drop in foreign labor supply growth is likely a contributor to the current job shortages and could slow down employment recovery and growth as the economy picks up speed.
There seems to be a lot of things moving to subscriptions--free broadcast service is losing out to them. That's true in the blogging universe as well as the entertainment world.
Seems to me that's going to have the effect of widening the gap between classes--those of us who can afford to will subscribe, those who can't will lose out.
I blogged a couple days ago about the website to request 4 free covid tests per household. Vox has a piece related to it concerning "administrative burden"--which is bad.
Using that term made me think: shouldn't there have been an OMB clearance number attached to the website for the necessary approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act? After all it's getting information from 10 or more people?
I think my question points to the fact that Congress should revise and update the Act.
