Smith column on employment sparks debate
Guy Smith’s column, reflecting on how he once “revelled in stretching fewer men over more acres” but now realises that isn’t a desirable approach, has sparked a big debate on the FWi forums.
Here are some of your comments:
“I can’t see myself ever employing anybody outside the family, it’s just too much hassle. I much prefer to use contractors, as you can get as much help as you need at busy periods, but no wages to pay at quiet times of year and no need to invent work to keep someone busy, often doing something that didn’t really need doing and spending a small fortune for materials or fuel in the process.” WelshnWilling
“There’s only any point in employing a person if it is seen as a stepping stone to employing a dozen people. If you have a dozen, you can pay someone to look after them.” Peesie
“Good employees are the key to business success, but I am very careful not to hire barrack room lawyers. But the government does its best to discourage employment, with PAYE and NI out of control.
“The move towards bigger tackle is fine while fuel is affordable, but that is changing.
“Too few staff leaves a business vulnerable when sickness calls. Real wages are falling, lots of people are looking for work. There are lots of jobs needing doing on farms that never get done, like improving drainage. When prices reach their historic norm of £500/t for wheat, many more people will be employed.” Glasshouse
“Guy Smith’s economic arguments seem so incomplete to be near worthless. As individuals, we can only create goods and services – jobs follow as a by-product. Mr Smith takes no account of the great benefit to wider society of driving down the cost of food by more efficient production methods. All the employees that would have worked on his farm, had he maintained his father’s employment rates per acre, are now working in other industries and being productive. If they were farm hands then wider society would suffer the loss of the work they are currently doing and gain nothing more, as the farm is already producing food without them.
“Providing full-time jobs is no sign of inefficiency, however practices that make jobs exist where there is not the need is a sign of gross inefficiency.” James George
“I will readily confess to be no economist. The point I was trying to make was that for the past 20 years I have been sucked into a mindset that assumed providing full-time jobs was a sign of inefficiency, while I was forever keen to take on more land, even if land prices and rents were being driven up artificially by CAP payments. CAP payments are, in part, designed to keep people employed on the land, but I wasn’t using it for that, I was using it to drive up the price of land, rents and FBTs.
“And now I’m changing my views – whereas before I was very reluctant to create a farm job, now I’m keen to.” Guy Smith
“Give a farm worker a job, a 39-hour basic week plus seasonal overtime, a house at a peppercorn rent, council tax and possibly some utilities bills thrown in. If they take home £20k gross, you can bet that the cost of employing and housing them will be circa £35k/year.” Brisel