Cyclone Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Land efficiency... Now your on about the amount of labour used to till the land. No, I'm on about the amount of food that would be produced and how your idea of deliberately reducing efficiency in order to use more labour would simply leave us with insufficient food. So what is it? Land efficient or Labour efficient? I've already said 'allotments are more land efficient than farms, farms are labour efficient'. You've said it, it doesn't make it true. Of course we could use surplus labour to improve land efficiency. No, we couldn't. Throwing extra labour at the system wouldn't improve the amount of food produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 No, I'm on about the amount of food that would be produced and how your idea of deliberately reducing efficiency in order to use more labour would simply leave us with insufficient food. You've said it, it doesn't make it true. No, we couldn't. Throwing extra labour at the system wouldn't improve the amount of food produced. Fool. Farms are labour efficient. Allotments are land efficient. You can improve the land efficiency by using more labour. You can improve labour efficiency by using less labour. We have a surplus of labour and a lack of land. We need to grow more on less land. And we have a surplus of labour. to grow more on less land we will require more labour. The solution is simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Fool. Touché, you really won that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 F You can improve the land efficiency by using more labour. We have a surplus of labour and a lack of land. We need to grow more on less land. And we have a surplus of labour. to grow more on less land we will require more labour. The solution is simple. Despite you repeating this several times it still isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Touché, you really won that one. Suppose; 1 man one acre, labour intensive. 1 tonne. 1 man, 10 acres, labour efficient. 8 tonnes. With 10 men and 10 acres, what is the most efficient* way to produce food; a) Labour efficient b) Land efficient c) Maximum food production. d) Maximum food production assuming only 5 of the men can work on the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Suppose that you stop just making up numbers though? Suppose that we look at the reality of modern farming and realise that 1 man, 10 acres and modern farming produces more than 10 men, 1 acre and allotment style gardening. Making up numbers will not make labour intensive farming more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Suppose that you stop just making up numbers though? Suppose that we look at the reality of modern farming and realise that 1 man, 10 acres and modern farming produces more than 10 men, 1 acre and allotment style gardening. Making up numbers will not make labour intensive farming more productive. I'll provide evidence after I have set the common sense example 1 man farming 10 acres using modern farming methods (labour efficient) will yield more food than 10 men farming one acre. But it won't yield more than 10 men farming 1 acre each. "1 acre, 1 man" or "1 acre, 2 man", which is more land efficient? I'm not on about employing people for the sake of it. We have a surplus of labour. We have a lack of land. Modern farming is more concerned about reducing the cost of labour than it is improving the efficiency of land use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 You need to provide some evidence now, because you keep repeating that farming smaller portions with more people produces more, but so far it's just an assertion that I disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 You need to provide some evidence now, because you keep repeating that farming smaller portions with more people produces more, but so far it's just an assertion that I disagree with. Consider this modern building. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/03b0f876-ea83-11e0-b0f5-00144feab49a.html#axzz1aa31SPDI You must think farming larger portions with less labour allows for increased production per unit of land. Perhaps we could extrapolate your idea, and having nobody farming in the entire universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I take it you can't prove your assertion and you're now trying to change the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.