"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:21:59 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


We are talking about averages.

Which will ultimately gets us nowhere.


NB, a correction: I took the figure £5000 from memory.
Now looking at data, the additional non-farm income brought
in to the average farm household would be more like £10000.


So the "average" farm income is presently about £10,000 below farm
household needs then. Wouldn't you say? Or do you reckon they do second
(even third) jobs for the sheer thrill of it?

Michael Saunby

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:18:14 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

..Torsten has been rather vague about
the relation between average cash income and the other measures of farm
business size. I suspect that the known differences between large and
small farms, where the large farms spend less per acre for the same
income, don't just affect "Net Farm Income".

Can you be more clear, please.

Elsethread, Jim-and-Brenda also mention paid holidays. How does one
calculate an allowance for that? It's not just the difference between
GBP 300 per week for 50 weeks and GBP 288 for 52 weeks, there is an
opportunity cost for not having those two weeks. And then there are the
longer working hours per week, and the need to check livestock daily.

The short answer is, you don't calculate an allowance for that. We are
talking about real money, cash, what you actually make to meet your
living expenses and make investments.

The actual figures get fuzzy, because a farmer might find the time to do
some DIY, but if Torsten wants a price for everything, he should set a
price on what the farmer has to forgo. How much does a painter and
decorator cost per hour?

What a farmer does DIY is irrelevant, if it has no regards to the Cash
Income he is producing -- and if it has, e.g. by cutting costs of
bills there is no reason to look into it further, it has already been
accounted for.

In article , David G. Bell
writes
I've an idea of how much money a photographer can have tied up in
hardware.
Can vary enormously, the difference between David Bailey or Lord
Lichfield and myself would be quite large.


It's a couple of orders of magnitude less than the equivalent for
farming,
Again that could vary, Bailey probably has far more tied up in his
business than you. But if you want to use myself as an example then yes,
you are correct.

and quality camera gear seems to hold its value rather better
than farm machinery.
Not true, second-hand photographic equipment is in abundance. Prices are
very cheap. Now digital photography is taking over older film
cameras/darkroom/processing equipment is not sought after and you can
pick up some good deals.

I have a film processor I paid about 5 grand for a few years ago, I
could hardly give it away now.

Digital equipment will hold its value relatively well in the short term
but rapid developments in technology make it quickly outdated and
virtually worthless in the same way as computers and printers.

Come to think of it I have a lot tied up in computers/printers/software
which I am going to see virtually no return on when I come to sell it.
Most of it will end up in a skip, I already have piles of it in the
loft. You can see why Gordon and Tony give me 100 per cent tax relief on
it!

I realise given the state on agriculture that there is probably an
abundance of machinery out there at bargain prices but when you are in
an industry that has become computer technology based you have similar
problems.


For that reason, I suspect it was easier for you to change direction.
Less of your wealth was tied up in a specific business.
Yes, I take your point now you have got to it

It is not impossible to get out of agriculture if you are unhappy with
it though is it?

You must forgive me my intolerance of whiners and moaners of their lot.
In some cases it is genuinely out of their hands but usually it is not.

Be positive !

Cheers
Dave

--

In article , Michael Saunby
writes
I really do believe that for once you're telling the truth here.
I'm amazed, for once you have said something sensible, well done.

What is
it they say about "all work and no play..."?
sigh knew it couldn't last..........

Plenty of play, it can be a very rewarding and enjoyable job. There were
times I found it hard to believe I was being well paid for what I was
doing

What's you're excuse ?

Cheers
Dave



--

"Dave Roberts" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes
I really do believe that for once you're telling the truth here.
I'm amazed, for once you have said something sensible, well done.

What is
it they say about "all work and no play..."?
sigh knew it couldn't last..........

Plenty of play, it can be a very rewarding and enjoyable job. There were
times I found it hard to believe I was being well paid for what I was
doing

What's you're excuse ?

Don't need one. I'm a grown-up.

Michael Saunby

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:09:34 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:21:59 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


We are talking about averages.

Which will ultimately gets us nowhere.


NB, a correction: I took the figure £5000 from memory.
Now looking at data, the additional non-farm income brought
in to the average farm household would be more like £10000.


So the "average" farm income is presently about £10,000 below farm
household needs then. Wouldn't you say?

No, it is a non sequitur.

Dave Roberts wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Webster
writes
most of us are.
We have rejigged the business twice in pretty major ways. Both times
in
response to economic situations created entirely by government/EU
action. Both times it worked and in both cases was then rendered void
by
new government action.

The problem is this takes time, and our third rejigging will probably
take another two or more years because agriculture works over that
sort
of time scale.
Remember with agriculture that 'walking away tomorrow' can take over
a
year, especially if, like most farmers, you have some tenancy
agreements.
Nevertheless the ball is in your court. If you don't like your
hours/pay/conditions then change it, whinging not achieve anything.

I take your point that it may take some time and effort but it is
achievable if you want to do it.

sure and we are doing it

interesting, each change produces less food but takes more money out of
the government, or at least costs the government more.

But then we are merely reacting rationally to their policies.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


Cheers
Dave

--

Dave Roberts wrote in message
...
It is not impossible to get out of agriculture if you are unhappy
with
it though is it?

actually for some people it is. Thank god I am not in that particular
boat but I know a lot of tenants who cannot get out because the sale of
their assets might not cover their liabilities, and even if it did they
would not be left with enough to put down the deposit on a house.
Indeed some have run into the problem that they are volunterily homeless
and therefore will not be put on the waiting list for council housing. A
lot of these people are clinging on, hoping that things will pick up
(farming moves in cycles and in ten or so years things will inevitably
look different,).
We saw with fmd that a lot of dairy farmers did get out, because the
people restocking were buying cattle and suddenly cattle had a value
again.

I couldn't say what proportion of farmers are in this particular bind,
perhaps 10%, perhaps more, but to be honest it is guessing.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Dave Roberts wrote in message
...
It is very true that we could do something else
all farmers could and be easily employable
being so multiskilled
There are plenty of jobs out there, I'd be surprised if anyone would
struggle that much.

surprising how easily farmers do pick up jobs. I've never known one not
pick up a job. Interestingly they tend to be driving and delivery jobs
for firms who want someone they can leave to get on with it


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Dave Roberts wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Webster
writes
I have an office job, we worked out Brenda and I spend 200hrs a year
on
just dealing with livestock movement etc.
Which is not even a couple of hours a week each.

but that is only one particular part of the paperwork, and isn't
actually business paperwork (by which I mean paperwork that you do
because you need to monitor your business (just as you might do a cash
flow or forward budget) but purely to provide data for government. I
suspect few employees spend two hours a week unpaid providing government
data, but here again the self employed and small businessmen will
doubtless be very familiar with the situation.

not usual for an employee. Remember torsten is comparing farmers with
employees. Certainly in ship building which is the common employer in
this town, if you are on call, you are amply rewarded.
Not usual but not uncommon.

things may be different in "white collar" industries, but in traditional
blue collar industries like ship building being on call pays well.



but remember you are just backing up my point with torsten. He is
comparing farmers with employees. Self employed do not compare with
employees. I've snipped the other self employed comparisons, I agree
with them, but it is torsten who doesn't appear to understand it.

I feel you haven't really made that point choosing the examples you
did.

remember I am used to traditional heavy industry which still exists
round here.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'


Cheers
Dave

--

In article , Michael Saunby
writes
Don't need one. I'm a grown-up.
Could've fooled me. I had enough of your childish slanging match.

Still think sparrows are lazy ?

Welcome to the killfile.

plonk

Cheers
Dave

--

In article , Jim Webster
writes
Nevertheless the ball is in your court. If you don't like your
hours/pay/conditions then change it, whinging not achieve anything.

I take your point that it may take some time and effort but it is
achievable if you want to do it.

sure and we are doing it
If by 'we' you mean others here I have my doubts. I realise you have
developed a second string to your bow but I see little sign of it
elsewhere.


interesting, each change produces less food but takes more money out of
the government, or at least costs the government more.

But then we are merely reacting rationally to their policies.
Don't you mean EU money and policies ?

It was a point of yours I took on board previously.

Cheers
Dave






--

In article , Jim Webster
writes
actually for some people it is. Thank god I am not in that particular
boat but I know a lot of tenants who cannot get out because the sale of
their assets might not cover their liabilities, and even if it did they
would not be left with enough to put down the deposit on a house.
Indeed some have run into the problem that they are volunterily homeless
and therefore will not be put on the waiting list for council housing. A
lot of these people are clinging on, hoping that things will pick up
(farming moves in cycles and in ten or so years things will inevitably
look different,).
We saw with fmd that a lot of dairy farmers did get out, because the
people restocking were buying cattle and suddenly cattle had a value
again.

I couldn't say what proportion of farmers are in this particular bind,
perhaps 10%, perhaps more, but to be honest it is guessing.
Sounds like the decision to get out of farming might well be taken out
of their hands sooner or later.

Surely voluntary bankruptcy is the only realistic option for a business
in this sort of state. Hanging on to see if things are better in ten
years doesn't sound like a sound strategy.

Tough break I know...........

Cheers
Dave



--

In article , Jim Webster
writes
surprising how easily farmers do pick up jobs. I've never known one not
pick up a job. Interestingly they tend to be driving and delivery jobs
for firms who want someone they can leave to get on with it

I can see that appealing to someone who has been self employed. Thought
about it myself once.

More so for someone who is used to being out and about such as a farmer.

Makes sense if you think about it.

Cheers
Dave

--

In article , Jim Webster
writes
I feel you haven't really made that point choosing the examples you
did.

remember I am used to traditional heavy industry which still exists
round here.
That might be so but if you were trying to point out the difference
between self employed and employed people poor phone connection, lack of
street lighting, poor electricity supply and poor roads were surprising
examples to choose.

I'll not labour the point though.......

Cheers
Dave


--