There are a number of problems with using earnings as a proxy for profit. Ideally, one would trace farm finances over many years and use the average of multiple years for the average rate of profit, since individual years can fluctuate on the basis of conditions and needed investments. Multiyear data are difficult to collect, and even the most detailed research has focused only on three farms over a single year (Hardesty and Leff 2010). Another problem is that, ideally, in the case of “what's left over” accounting, one would want to know the operating surplus and then the amount reinvested in fixed capital, the amount that paid down debt, and the amount taken as take-home pay. Reinvestments may not have been necessary for the operation, so may instead be considered profit and therefore added to the earnings category. 5 I did not do so with the data, so the data are rather conservative (low), reflecting what was left over after investments and debt payment. Also, in calculating earnings, I assumed that all farm partners contribute the same amount of work to, and receive the same amount of return from, the farm. Most farm partners put in a great deal of effort, but their efforts are not necessarily equal, and I did not ask for their precise number of hours worked on the farm in a year. Another shortcoming is that these data are not comparative among large farming regions; it is difficult to discuss the applicability of these findings elsewhere. But given the problems of self-exploitation in CSA identified in other regions and nationwide (Cone and Myhre 2000; Jarosz 2008; Lass et al. 2003), I suspect that the analysis will resonate widely.
There are a number of problems with using earnings as a proxy for profit. Ideally, one would trace farm finances over many years and use the average of multiple years for the average rate of profit, since individual years can fluctuate on the basis of conditions and needed investments. Multiyear data are difficult to collect, and even the most detailed research has focused only on three farms over a single year (Hardesty and Leff 2010). Another problem is that, ideally, in the case of “what's left over” accounting, one would want to know the operating surplus and then the amount reinvested in fixed capital, the amount that paid down debt, and the amount taken as take-home pay. Reinvestments may not have been necessary for the operation, so may instead be considered profit and therefore added to the earnings category. 5 I did not do so with the data, so the data are rather conservative (low), reflecting what was left over after investments and debt payment. Also, in calculating earnings, I assumed that all farm partners contribute the same amount of work to, and receive the same amount of return from, the farm. Most farm partners put in a great deal of effort, but their efforts are not necessarily equal, and I did not ask for their precise number of hours worked on the farm in a year. Another shortcoming is that these data are not comparative among large farming regions; it is difficult to discuss the applicability of these findings elsewhere. But given the problems of self-exploitation in CSA identified in other regions and nationwide (Cone and Myhre 2000; Jarosz 2008; Lass et al. 2003), I suspect that the analysis will resonate widely.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..