Cost effective solution to rural unemployment

[nahtanbob]

I think the major problem with the rest of them is that they're government run. This proposal would be government owned, but run by private companies on contracts.

On paper they'd be incentivised, success would earn reward, failure would earn punishment.

How could that go wrong?

Government might not award contracts on merit. Measurement of kpi's may not be fair, private companies are by nature in it for the money.

Airtight contracts would be required to get them to commit to staff training and investing in the development side of things. Government generally does not do air tight contracts.

What else? How do you think it could go wrong? Need to do some risk management.

if you have a village where 80% of land is owned by private landowners and 20% of land is co-operative where do you think farm workers will want to work ?

rewards/incentives are easy to set. how do you handle failure ? lack of water causing drop in agricultural output. some mysterious pest destroying the crops. it is a lot trickier.

what you will find out is that some of the farmers who work on the 80% are better off handling the 20% state farms they know the agricultural profession. they know the labor conditions. they have economy of scale

 

[313ghazi]

if you have a village where 80% of land is owned by private landowners and 20% of land is co-operative where do you think farm workers will want to work ?

rewards/incentives are easy to set. how do you handle failure ? lack of water causing drop in agricultural output. some mysterious pest destroying the crops. it is a lot trickier.

what you will find out is that some of the farmers who work on the 80% are better off handling the 20% state farms they know the agricultural profession. they know the labor conditions. they have economy of scale

The questions your asking all require a professional understanding of agriculture to answer properly. This is why I said this plan would require agriculturalists. I guess they'd have to be employed by the government as well as the companies bidding for contracts. You'd need independent experts and lawyers to help draw up proper contracts. It's not impossible - thus us done between private farmers and companies worldwide.

As for your question about who'd be better off? There are too many variables to consider. A person with only enough land to grow food for themselves has food security but is cash poor. Someone with a salary as a farmer might be better or worse of depending on the salary. A person with land to grow to sell is probably the wealthiest of the lot. The typical person employed on these farms would be someone who doesn't have enough land to live off.

You're right though - local farmers might be the best available experts. Maybe they could be given land to manage and have farm hands hired to work for them.

But then that might create landlords. We don't need more of those. Maybe they'd be paid to work on the land and keep a % of the crops?

There must be a viable business case somewhere

 

[B.K.N]

who doesn't have enough land to live off.

Such type of people are already working on others land
Like harvesting wheat cutting sugarcane etc

 

[313ghazi]

Such type of people are already working on others land
Like harvesting wheat cutting sugarcane etc

Yeah, but do they get paid a decent salary? Get training opportunities etc.

 

[B.K.N]

Yeah, but do they get paid a decent salary? Get training opportunities etc.

Yes they do get paid and what training

Agriculture is a labour intensive work you can't do it alone you have to hire others to do your work even a person who owns only 4 or 5 acres can't do everything alone

 

[nahtanbob]

The questions your asking all require a professional understanding of agriculture to answer properly. This is why I said this plan would require agriculturalists. I guess they'd have to be employed by the government as well as the companies bidding for contracts. You'd need independent experts and lawyers to help draw up proper contracts. It's not impossible - thus us done between private farmers and companies worldwide.

As for your question about who'd be better off? There are too many variables to consider. A person with only enough land to grow food for themselves has food security but is cash poor. Someone with a salary as a farmer might be better or worse of depending on the salary. A person with land to grow to sell is probably the wealthiest of the lot. The typical person employed on these farms would be someone who doesn't have enough land to live off.

You're right though - local farmers might be the best available experts. Maybe they could be given land to manage and have farm hands hired to work for them.

But then that might create landlords. We don't need more of those. Maybe they'd be paid to work on the land and keep a % of the crops?

There must be a viable business case somewhere

i see what you are trying to create