After 10,000 Years, Farming No Longer Dominates

Peter S. Magnusson writes "As reported widely in business and mainstream press, the ILO recently released world market employment statistics. Most outlets focused on US economic competitiveness vs. China and Europe. Few noticed the gem hidden away in the ILO report: for the first time since the invention of agriculture, farming is not the biggest sector of the global economy — services is. (Aggregate employment numbers often divide the economy into agriculture, industry, and services.) Workers are now moving directly from agriculture to services, bypassing the traditional route of manufacturing."

To me, the really sad thing is...

[AltGrendel]

...once you take land out of agricultural use, it is never used for agriculture again. By that I mean the growing of crops. Once a building is there, that's it.

Re:

[AuMatar]

So? We only need to increase the food supply if the population grows. Something we need to stop anyway- western lifestyles aren't sustainable to 6 billion, much less 10.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not necessarily. You can always put a green roof on the building. You can also use corner offices for greenhouses. Especially Southwest and Southeast corners.

What really disturbs me though is that we've gone from a race of creators, creating goods with agriculture or manufacturing, to a world wide economy of McJobs that pay minimum wage and create NOTHING.

Re:

[Overzeetop]

No, you've missed the transition. It now takes such a small portion of human output to feed, clothe, and house said humans that entire industries have been created from scatch to "enhance" our lives. Don't think of it as so many useless things we consume, but that it takes so little effort to provide the basic necessities.

Over the course of human history, it has been the same tale of minimum wages - those at the top of the money ladder consume and provide jobs for those at the bottom. Many view this situat

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, you've missed the transition. It now takes such a small portion of human output to feed, clothe, and house said humans that entire industries have been created from scatch to "enhance" our lives. Don't think of it as so many useless things we consume, but that it takes so little effort to provide the basic necessities.

I'd believe that if the majority of the human species wasn't struggling to survive. But I suppose, that's more of a resource allocation problem than a resource production problem is wha

Green roofs and victory gardens

[AHumbleOpinion]

Not necessarily. You can always put a green roof on the building. You can also use corner offices for greenhouses. Especially Southwest and Southeast corners.

I was thinking of green roofs, but corner office green houses had not occurred to me. I would like to add the backyard victory gardens of World War 2 as well.

Give them more credit

[paladinwannabe2]

Our entertainers, doctors and teachers all count as 'service' jobs. So are the graphic artists who design our toys and the advertisers who sell them to us. So are the truckers that bring us our food, the McMinions that cook it for us, and the lawyers that sue for us when we eat too much of it. Just because someone's in a 'service' job doesn't mean they aren't useful, valued, and improve the human condition. It also certainly doesn't mean they make minimum wage. (Sure, the McMinions will make minimum wage, but it's not like the assembly line workers or grunt farmers are doing any better for themselves).

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Our entertainers, doctors and teachers all count as 'service' jobs. So are the graphic artists who design our toys and the advertisers who sell them to us. So are the truckers that bring us our food, the McMinions that cook it for us, and the lawyers that sue for us when we eat too much of it.

None of which actually CREATE goods- they just mess up the market with unproductive activities that are better done by government.

Just because someone's in a 'service' job doesn't mean they aren't useful, valued,

Re:

[j-pimp]

Our entertainers, doctors and teachers all count as 'service' jobs. So are the graphic artists who design our toys and the advertisers who sell them to us. So are the truckers that bring us our food, the McMinions that cook it for us, and the lawyers that sue for us when we eat too much of it.

None of which actually CREATE goods- they just mess up the market with unproductive activities that are better done by government.

So you want the government driving trucks? And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive? There not doing such a great job with Amtrak. Put aside the lawyers for a minute, all of these people provide real value.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So you want the government driving trucks?

Better than that- I want the government running railroads! Actually, the government might not drive the truck, but they spent over $2 million/mile to give that truck a road to run on....

And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive?

For two reasons- one is that it's usually more efficient to put the people where the food is rather than trucking it hundreds of miles, and the other questioning whether ANYTHING goes on in NYC that is actually produc

You don't get civilization, do you

[paladinwannabe2]

Better than that- I want the government running railroads! Actually, the government might not drive the truck, but they spent over $2 million/mile to give that truck a road to run on....

That's an interesting statistic. That would mean the government spent 8 Trillion on our highways alone, which is probably what you are referring to. The rest of our road system doesn't cost nearly as much. You can pave a road pretty cheaply.

And getting the corn from the farm to NYC is not productive?
For two re

Re:

[FooAtWFU]

What really disturbs me though is that we've gone from a race of creators, creating goods with agriculture or manufacturing, to a world wide economy of McJobs that pay minimum wage and create NOTHING.

I don't think subsistence agriculture is all that grand of an exercise in Creation. Likewise, the industrial factory job, 9-to-5 shift, doing the same thing over and over again, that would make up the bulk of an assembly line.... is more mind-numbing than "creative". The engineers behind these things may have been great Creators, but not the workers. As such, I'm hard-pressed to find something intrinsically wrong (for the workers) with the typical job moving from the one set to the other. Perhaps you can

Re:

[Gospodin]

...once you take land out of agricultural use, it is never used for agriculture again.

What the heck are you talking about? This may be true in practice, but that's only because we're vastly more efficient growing crops than we've ever been before... which is what this article is about. This isn't bad news, for crying out loud!

It certainly isn't true in principle that once a building goes up, that's it for agriculture for that city block. So what's the problem?

Re:

[CaptainPatent]

Not completely true...

The glorious thing about having an economy is that the value of using that land as building space versus using it as farmland is openly weighed. One may tend to think that once a building is up, it's there to stay because in our economy, plant output has been getting progressively more efficient so the demand for farmland is slowly decreasing. This is why buildings that are put up tend to stay up. If we lived in a society where the demand for veggies was increasing and the only way t

That would work...

[Daishiman]

Except that the value of things is not, unlike some Libertarians like to think, totally contemplated within the market. You think if farmland's expensive, buildings will be torn down? I'd say, forests and other natural ecosystems will be torn down WAY before buildings are! Have you looked at the Amazon recently?

The fact remains, continued growth of the population will result in the destruction of fragile ecosystems long before it makes an impact (at least in the short term) to city dwellers. It's not like

Re:

[be951]

To me, the sad thing is that the article is about the number of people working in the different categories (agriculture, industry, services) and says nothing about land use. Yet you've spawned a whole thread of people bemoaning (mostly) the loss of agricultural land and diminished food production, neither of which is supported by the article -- and may not even be accurate (a quick google search didn't turn up anything to that effect).

Re:

[nurb432]

That doesn't hold true if you give it enough time. A lot of cities fall to ruin over time and are returned to the land, in time.

I also bet that once we start running out of food due to 'progress', buildings will be coming down anyway. More 'land' will be available for farming after the revolution, and building burnings.

Re:

[Surt]

Which is sad because there is nothing better to do with land than growing crops?
And it's also not strictly true. There are places in the world that have been built on, and had the buildings torn down later to make room for farming and other uses.

Re:

[ucblockhead]

Certain areas of New Orleans are a counter-example.

Seriously, most buildings deteriorate into nothing with 100 years of inattention.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[AKAImBatman]

I can fix that! [verticalfarm.com]

--

10,000 years of incredible human engineering isn't going to end with something as simple as "we've developed all the farmland".

Re:

[Otter]

I really doubt you need anything that complicated. People will knock down some building and plant crops long before they'll starve. I'm not sure why the OP thinks it's impossible.

Developed land is replacing farmland because agriculture gets more and more efficient, not because of some law of thermodynamics.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[AKAImBatman]

People will knock down some building and plant crops long before they'll starve.

While true, it's unlikely it will ever happen. Barring a collapse of civilization (did someone mention Huns at the door?) humankind will continue to engineer itself forward. Something "complicated" like an Indoor Farm may seem like an overkill, but it does have a lot of advantages over farmland. Not the least of which is control. We've already been engineering our crops and the soil. (Even the "organic" variety still use modern farming techniques.) Thus the next logical step is to engineer the farmland itself to better meet our needs.

Reducing the distance between the farms and the consumers could have a lot of direct benefits. One of which is being able to control and recycle the farm wastes means that open lands are cleaner and better smelling. Future city engineers may even look at ways of pumping filtered CO2 from the city's air into the crops, while pumping the resultant oxygen back to the city.

Lots of possibilities. :)

(And yes, I've been watching too much "Engineering an Empire" off of iTunes. Excellent show!)

Re:

[Otter]

While true, it's unlikely it will ever happen. Barring a collapse of civilization...

I agree, but a collapse of civilization is precisely what was being discussed.

In Zimbabwe, where agriculture has collapsed, shanties are torn down to grow gardens in urban areas.

It's already being done

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's being done by people growing illegal crops - marijuana. Growing marijuana outside has many disadvantages; pests (both insect and law enforcement), seeds, thieves (both pot smokers and pot law enforcers), weather, etc.

Pot grown inside has little chance of being discovered; the only way to be found out is by letting someone know it's being grown there.

Outdoors, insects are a problem. Indoors the insect problem is easily controllable.

Pot grown outdoors has seeds, which weigh far more than the pot itself, taste bad, and produce no high. Indoors the male plants can be pulled befors they produce pollen.

Outdoor crops are prone to drought and overwatering, even floods. If indoor pot is overwatered, it's the farmer's fault.

Indoors, pot is easily cloned. One can find one great plant and clone it, producing what toiday's potheads call "hydro". It's believed by smokers that pot grown hydroponically is of higher quality than pot grown in dirt, but given the same genetics, either farming method will produce the exact same quality, and the clones are exectly the same potency as their parent plant (given the same amount of light, water, and fertilizer).

OT for the subject but on topic for this post, It's ironic that the War On (some) Drugs has produced more potent drugs! Today's pot is all seedless bud, while 1970s pot had stems, seeds, and leaf. And the bud itself, even without the seeds, is up to four times as potent as the 1970s bud. And without the "war", it's possible that crack cocaine might never been invented (or been invented yet). Prohibition not only doesn't work, it exacerbates the problems it is supposed to solve. Alcohol prohibition had America in a domestic, gang-fueled bloodbath, and often the illegal hooch had very harmful impurities, often produced by the government itself. Likewise, reefer prohibition had the Feds spraying paraquat on outdoor crops, sickening and killing American potsmokers (there is no lethal dose for unadulterated reefer) and contributing to pot's being grown indoors. Cocaine prohibition is producing the same gang-fueled bloodbath as alco hol prohibition did, and possiby was the cause of crack being invented.

When my daughters were in high school, one made the astute observation that you could buy pot, coke, and crack in school. I asked if you could buy beer in school? The answer is "no". So please think of the children and legalise drugs!

-anonymous coward

Re:

[jamstar7]

Pot grown inside has little chance of being discovered; the only way to be found out is by letting someone know it's being grown there.

Actually, what do you think those late night helicopter flights are for? Grow houses kick off a lotta infrared unless you insulate the hell outta your attic. And your electric bill will go through the roof if you're growing under lights. Police have gotten warrants based on electric bills:

http://www.shakopeenews.com/node/722 [shakopeenews.com]

http://www.savagepacer.com/node/273 [savagepacer.com]

http:// [goldismoney.info]

Re:

[TemporalBeing]

Barring a collapse of civilization (did someone mention Huns at the door?) humankind will continue to engineer itself forward. Something "complicated" like an Indoor Farm may seem like an overkill, but it does have a lot of advantages over farmland. Not the least of which is control. We've already been engineering our crops and the soil. (Even the "organic" variety still use modern farming techniques.) Thus the next logical step is to engineer the farmland itself to better meet our needs.

Interesting conce

Re:

[Fizzl]

Why not ditch the whole laborious plant parenting thing and nano engineer out stakes and bread straight from molecules? I mean, if we are talking about 10k year span here, anything can happen.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[gstoddart]

Developed land is replacing farmland because agriculture gets more and more efficient, not because of some law of thermodynamics.

No, it replaces farmland because cities grow out into previously rural places, and smaller farms sell out because they can make more money by selling the land than farming it. On the industrial scale, farming is more efficient. But it doesn't account for most of the loss of farm-land.

If what you were saying, farms in rural areas would simply congeal into a big mega farm.

I know both Toronto and Ottawa in Ontario (Canada) have steadily been expanding into what was once some of the best farmland in the country. There's an ever-diminishing number of farmers who haven't sold out. For the most part, it goes away due to subdivision growth, not anything to do with the efficiency of farming.

When you get many miles of subdivision occupying what used to be very arable land, that farmland is taken out of the pool. Increasingly in the west, food comes from rather far away since we're using the land for roads and houses instead of farming.

I can only imagine that if you look around the western world, you'll find lots of places which used to be good farmland have suffered the same fate. Unfortunately, it would take a massive amount of upheaval to cause people in suburbs to start tearing down their homes and streets to start on subsistence farming.

Cheers

Re:

[Otter]

No, it replaces farmland because cities grow out into previously rural places, and smaller farms sell out because they can make more money by selling the land than farming it.

I think you're confusing cause and effect, though. Farming becomes less profitable so the farmers have to sell to developers. If there were really danger of impending famine because of the loss of farmland, turning farms into townhouses wouldn't be profitable. (And in the doomsday scenarios people are invoking, knocking down McMansion

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Save for the problem that there's likely a peak to agricultural efficiency. At some point, as population increases, a lack of arable land may become a problem.

Let's remember here, that whatever the dollar measure of which sector dominates the global economy, agriculture will remain forever the single most important facet of civilization. Nothing is more important than farming.

Re:

[Johnny5000]

I really doubt you need anything that complicated. People will knock down some building and plant crops long before they'll starve.

So why aren't starving people knocking down buildings to plant crops now?

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[mikael]

It's not too difficult to convert a garden lawn into an allotment or a greenhouse. That's what many people do in the UK. Even if they don't have a garden they can rent an allotment from the city council (much to the dismay of land developers). People were encouraged to do this during World War II. By growing their own vegetables, fuel used to transport produce from the countryside to the cities could go towards the war effort instead. Even after rationing was removed, people still insisted on growing their own food, as it tastes fresher than the produce from the supermarkets.

As an example of a shortage in food supply, you only have to look at the milk shortage the UK faces. The major supermarket chains (Tesco, Sainsbury, ...) all employ "negotiators" to keep the price of commodity items down while keeping the price of other items high. As a consequence, they drove a good many dairy farms into bankruptcy, so they bought milk on the international market instead. Now that China has announced that all children should get at least half a glass of milk a day, the international market cannot satisfy demand.

Source Sunday Times [timesonline.co.uk]

Re:

[eno2001]

Nice. But it's a pipe dream. It'll never happen on any usable scale since it assumes more energy than we can afford to expend on such a venture in terms of lighting it sufficiently. Especially the inner portions of the edifice.

Re:

[imaginaryelf]

Population problems are self correcting. Yes, there's the bit about war and famine and general misery for a few generations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[timeOday]

That type of "self-correction" is the problem. Avoiding that is the whole point of agriculture in the first place!

Re:

[Kadin2048]

Avoiding that is the whole point of agriculture in the first place!

I'm not sure that I'd agree with this. The major benefit of agriculture is that it allows for specialization: when you stop hunting-and-gathering and start farming, not everyone needs to spend their entire day involved in food production. This allows for civilization. A side-effect of this is that you can support much higher populations, but the real difference is in the specialization of roles. (Since a tribe of hunter-gatherers working off of some very good land can have a large population relative to th

Re:

[Knutsi]

Any ecological population in nature that grows towards the capacity of what the environment can sustain encounters growth regulating factors that limits growth, and eventually levels the growth at certain numbers. These factors are: competition, decease, predation and stress (dogs eating puppies, harder territorial fights etc). This leads to improvements in the genetic pool, keeping the overall population strong as specimens that are sickly, weak or have other non-benefitial mutations are removed from the

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[Gospodin]

I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.

I don't care to go into details right now, but you're wrong.

Re:

[ichigo 2.0]

That has nothing to do with the "global economy" (whatever that is), and everything to do with biofuel shenanigans. Why would farmers sell their wares as food when they get much more from selling them as fuel?

Re:

[Cro Magnon]

Yeah, but until we all become cyborgs, we can't eat ethanol!

Ignorance is not an excuse

[pkbarbiedoll]

Ethanol is most criticized, and with due cause. Traditional methods of ethanol production (for instance) deserve criticism. Using only corn kernels is horribly inefficient, particularly when corn is a food source.

But the old ways are changing. The State of Georgia will host the nation's first cellulosic ethanol production facility [dailykos.com]. Cellulosic ethanol production is more than 15 times more efficient than traditional production methods. Any green biomass can be used: corn kernels, corn stalks, corn roots, switchgrass, cane sugar, tree chips, industrial green waste, and even pig shit. This is the future of biofuels.

Range Fuels is building the new facility in Georgia. They do not use any biomass also used as a food source for humans or animals. The Georgia plant will use industrial tree waste from the many paper mills in the region.

Re:

[The One and Only]

Cane sugar? We don't even use cane sugar for sugar anymore, why on earth would we use it for biofuels?

More ignorance

[pkbarbiedoll]

Georgia has many problems, but Sunday sales of alcohol are not among worst of them. Restaurants legally sell booze/liquor on Sunday. There is no law in buying a dozen cases of Budweiser on Saturday night if you want a rockin' party on Sunday morning.

What is more concerning to me is laws like the Atlanta city council is trying to pass, which would make visible bra straps illegal.

Re:

[wcrowe]

I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.

I dunno, guess that depends on your definition of "food supply"...

"Soylent Green is people!"

Re:

[king-manic]

...And thus begins mankind's shooting itself in it's foot. With less land being used to grow FOOD, you will see more and more situations like the skyrocketing tortilla prices in Mexico and general famines around the world. I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.

I'm not sure if someone else pointed this out but we're currently producing the most food we have ever produced in all recorded history. What you are noticing is probably the local reduction

Re:

[Citizen of Earth]

I don't care to go into details right now, but the "global economy" is destroying our food supply.

Yeah, it's a terrible shame how Westerners are starving to death. They're all skin and bones!

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[MyLongNickName]

And, yet, starvation rates world wide are going down. Perhaps the issue is distribution, not supply? Also, the fact that food is a smaller percentage of the economy does not mean that the amount of food is decreasing. If the rest of the economy per capita is increasing by a positive rate, then it will naturally outstrip food which is not going to be consumed at an every increasing per capita rate.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

What is sad to me is that agriculture is shrinking at the same time the demand for food world-wide is increasing.

The summary didn't say that worldwide food production was decreasing, just that fewer workers are employed in agriculture (relative to industry and services) than were in the past. At least part of that is probably due to more efficient production methods that allow the same or greater amounts of food to be grown by fewer workers. I don't know the actual statistics, but it would surprise me g

Re:

[TykeClone]

Google listing of pictures of piles of corn [google.com]

We're so efficient at growing corn, our problem is getting it out of the midwest. Because of this, we "grow" piles of corn during the fall until it can be shipped to market for its end use.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[gomiam]

I would like you to explain why do you say that. AFAIK, current crops and current agricultural methods provide more food per surface unit (and I'm not even getting into account hidroponics): mechanization of the work allows to plant and seed at the optimum growth distance, and current crops usually require less space per plant to grow and produce the same amount.

Newer Studies have contradicted your statement...

[BradySama]

In July of this year, a study (Study: Organic Farming More Efficient [livescience.com]) was published that found that organic farming methods can produce up to 3 times more food than more 'conventional' methods... just wanted to add to the debate!

Re:Newer Studies have contradicted your statement.

[fimbulvetr]

What the article did not address, however, which wholy invalidates the entire argument, is exactly how much energy cost there was in this type farming - from planting, to de-weeding, to harvesting and processing. The amount of energy expended to acomplish those process likely exceeds that energy which it portends to save.

Re:

[fimbulvetr]

I think the points you raise are unquestionably true, to argue against them is to demonstrate some severe ignorance.

All we're doing now is currently using huge stockpiles of non-renewing (or renewing on too massive of timescales) biomass to convert to energy. The biomass is essentially a large capacitor or battery that had stockpiled billions of years of the sun's energy. We keep thinking of newer and newer ways to drain this battery, and more efficient ways to extract that energy (or at least widen its pip

Re:

[Otter]

That may be true, but newer crop variants are much more productive per area than traditional ones are. Overall, I'm sure the GP is correct. And even more so for raising animals.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[bigdavex]

That's certainly not true for grains. What are kind of crops are you thinking of?

Wilson Quarterly [wilsoncenter.org]

Since 1900, U.S. farmers have more than tripled wheat production per acre to 40 bushels in 1997, up from 12. For corn, the gains have been even larger--127 bushels per acre in 1997 versus 28 in 1900. But in the previous century, crop yields barely improved at all. In 1800, wheat yields were 15 bushels per acre and corn yields 25 bushels per acre.

Re:

[MyLongNickName]

I stand corrected.

Re:To me, the really sad thing is...

[TykeClone]

For corn, much of the improvements have come in the genetics of the seed (hybridization in the 50's and gmo's now) and in the application of ag chemicals for fertilizer and pest control. This year, the USDA is estimating that corn yields will be in the 150 bushels per acre range (but that might be a bit high).

Re:

[E++99]

Since 1900, U.S. farmers have more than tripled wheat production per acre to 40 bushels in 1997, up from 12. For corn, the gains have been even larger--127 bushels per acre in 1997 versus 28 in 1900. But in the previous century, crop yields barely improved at all. In 1800, wheat yields were 15 bushels per acre and corn yields 25 bushels per acre.

There are a whole lot of factors that contribute to those increases, though. Probably one of the simplest is the affordability of irrigation. One of the most freq

Re:

[ucblockhead]

The most important factor in that increase is manufactured fertilizers. Prior to mid-twentieth century, farm production was limited by the inability to fix nitrogen.

Iceage

[Sragonal]

Over 10.000 years there wil be an iceage... no, farming will not dominate then.

Re:

[Cro Magnon]

Nah, just keep driving SUVs so Global Warming can stave off the iceage.

Nice blog to get hits, but...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Here's the important info, from the actual report: Here (PDF) [ilo.org]

You'll note, from this article:

Caution should be used, however, where the information refers only to employees or only to urban areas. For some years in certain countries, the sectoral information relates only to urban areas, so that little or no agricultural work is recorded.

Also, there is no data culled for the vast majority of African nations, where the sector of choice would be agriculture. So, to sum it up - your blog about the rise of services vs. agriculture could only be considered partially correct, at best.

10,000 Years?

[unfunk]

bu bu bu... God only created the earth 6,000 years ago!

Food remains crucial though...

[hughk]

By definition, we all still need food. Agriculture may have fallen behind but the decline has been happening since mechanisation but we are still eating. The cost of food at the farm gate has fallen, the value added bit of the chain moving more and more to the processing and manufacture of food items. I can't find an easy way of looking at the food sector as a whole from farm (or vat for that matter) through to supermarket but it must remain massive.

Re:

[Gospodin]

Agriculture may have fallen behind...

The cost of food at the farm gate has fallen...

Do you not see the inconsistency here? If prices have fallen, it's because supply is becoming ever more efficient and is outstripping demand. So in what sense has agriculture "fallen behind"?

Re:

[gstoddart]

Do you not see the inconsistency here? If prices have fallen, it's because supply is becoming ever more efficient and is outstripping demand. So in what sense has agriculture "fallen behind"?

Supply is becoming efficient in a limited way, but not on a wide scale. Most of these savings are economies of scale, or cheap imported produce.

Large scale industrial farming generates a large amount of food available relatively cheaply. But, it's effectively off-shoring of your agriculture. It's cheap because a coun

Re:

[Gospodin]

Large scale industrial farming generates a large amount of food available relatively cheaply. But, it's effectively off-shoring of your agriculture. It's cheap because a country with lower labour costs is producing it for you.

If this were true, how would it explain the fact that countries with among the highest labor costs in the world (USA and Canada, to name two) are enormous exporters of food, while lots of countries with low labor costs (the African countries, for example) are net importers?

It's cer

Re:

[gurps_npc]

Part of what is going on by the way is a 'redefining' into Service.

What is the difference between cleaning a shirt and sewing a shirt. Both take raw material ("cloth") and turn it into the same product (clean shirt). But because the sewing typically involved purchasing the shirt and reselling it instead of simply 'taking possesion' of it and returning it, it is considered 'industry' while the cleaning is considered 'service'.

Similarly, there are a whole lot of "service" industries related to agricultu

grammar nazi time

[curmudgeous]

Yes, I did RTFA, and I think the following is only one example in the blog of why one should proofread one's works or at least get an editor to do so.

(sic) "If you licked this posting, then please click here..."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never felt the urge to lick someone's blog.

Re:

[svendsen]

I dunno when I see Bill O'reily's blog I want to lick it all over like a lolly pop....

I just threw up...

Impossible...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as games like WoW exist.

Farming will always be there.

Sure - until the oil production skids

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Sure - we have the luxury of a service economy because we have a huge amount of oil that permits things like fertiliser and pesticides and trucks to move food and all that crap.

Once we start sliding down the back end of the depletion curve, fertiliser will become increasingly expensive, as will pesticides. Farming will become more labour intensive, and farming will, again, dominate the economy, as it always has and always will.

Enjoy living in Atlantis, while you can.

RS

But is it only a Bubble like the Dot Bomb era?

[abb3w]

Semi-seriously. I'm not sure the services-dominant model is sustainable.

Re:

[decipher_saint]

"Semi-seriously. I'm not sure the services-dominant model is sustainable."

Well you could find out on your own, but for a moderate fee I could find out for you!

Re:

[Empiric]

And for good reason. "Services" produces no significant value multiplier to time. Money (actual monetary value, not fiat paper) comes from value multipliers to time.

Nation of industry = wealth, nation of services = bankruptcy.

Re:

[abb3w]

"Services" produces no significant value multiplier to time. Money (actual monetary value, not fiat paper) comes from value multipliers to time.

Mmmm... even ignoring the secondary assertion (I've yet to hear an explanation of money that rings completely true), it can sometimes. Engineering design work is a form of service good, which results in development of items that can give considerable time savings. Develop a better mousetrap, spend less time chasing mice. Even if I don't build any mousetraps myse

Re:

[Dunbal]

Also for a modest sum I can contradict whatever decipher_saint says. In court, if needed.

Re:

[Colin Smith]

Semi-seriously. I'm not sure the services-dominant model is sustainable.

It's not. It's a temporary solution until the dollar devalues to a reasonable level. Then it'll be reasonable to hire Americans again.

 

Re:

[Citizen of Earth]

Semi-seriously. I'm not sure the services-dominant model is sustainable.

Hasn't the West had a services-dominant economy for the past 40 years? In Canada [statcan.ca], Goods-producing industries: $336e9, Services-producing industries: $781e9 (Jun 2007, using 1997 CA$). If you are a university student, take a course in macroeconomics. It's very interesting stuff (unlike microeconomics).

The oldest profession

[Baldrson]

People think "the services sector" is something new in civilization, but they forget the oldest profession: prostitution.

Almost as soon as there were cities, there were temple prostitutes who, along with grain, formed the backing for much of the early currencies. These days the temple [google.com] is returning to "services" for backing of the value of its currency, but we must ask ourselves one simple question:

When subsistence agrarians are cut off from their lands through centralized land ownership, and wealth is

Re:

[Baldrson]

It is heartless to deprive men of their mates via de facto monetization of female fertility within corporate and governmental harems.

less agricultural folks is NOT a good thing

[cats-paw]

fewer people making food makes the agricultural system more sensitive to disruption whether due to political upheaval, new and exciting crop pests, weather misfortunes, etc... Many folks on slashdot realize the advantages of decentralized, i.e. distributed systems, and it's an especially good thing for food production.

Also, the argicultural "miracle" we are currently seeing, is borrowing from the future to pay for itself in terms of environmental damage. You should really be worried when growing food hurts the environment, it really shouldn't be that way.

Re:

[hey!]

less agricultural folks is NOT a good thing...

... ceteris paribus, which they never are.

People have been raiding livestock, burning crops, and salting fields since the dawn of time. And it has certainly been "disruptive". Upheaval continues to be disruptive, but these days the disruption is limited to subsistence farmers who become refugees. The further up on the economic scale you are, the more wealth you have sitting in spreadsheet somewhere that can be exchanged for real goods like food from far aw

old professions rarely die - they modernize

[peter303]

Something like three percent of the US population produces and processes enough food fo r the entire US population, when it took 70% when the country was founded. Thanks to technology, non-renewable energy, and better business organization. Farmers use GPS, Google Maps, wireless, spreadsheets, etc. to manage their operations now.

Re:

[Prof.Phreak]

Something like three percent of the US population produces and processes enough food fo r the entire US population, when it took 70% when the country was founded. Thanks to technology, non-renewable energy, and better business organization. Farmers use GPS, Google Maps, wireless, spreadsheets, etc. to manage their operations now.

Which prompts the question, what do the other 97% of the population are doing? Supervise? 'cause it doesn't appear the US ``produces'' much of anything now a days (besides...food).

The Third Wave

[Doc Ruby]

Read Alvin Toffler's 1980 book _The Third Wave [wikipedia.org]_ which predicted with uncanny accuracy just how this would play out. Stay ahead of the next 10,000 years.

To Anyone Horrified By This Development:

[aquatone282]

Get up at 4:00 a.m., slop the pigs, milk the cows, brush the horses, feed the chickens, cook breakfast, eat breakfast, hook up a plow to the tractor, plow the north 40 acres, meet the vet to see that sick heifer, drive to town and plead for another loan, buy feed for the animals and groceries for the family, drive home, cook dinner, eat dinner, pay bills, balance the checkbook, go to bed (9:00 p.m.)

Then get up the next day and repeat. And continue to repeat for two weeks (except Sundays - go to the church of your choice on Sunday and pray to God you survive another year). Then come back and complain.

Automation = Free Food

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

With the increase in automation (read: robotics) the price of food will drop and subsequently the profit.

Extrapolating into the future, perhaps farms will be (almost) completely automatic. Everything will drop in price when automation is put into play. This is what I see as the cause.

For now ...

[ScrewMaster]

After 10,000 Years, Farming No Longer Dominates

A temporary aberration. After the Great Collapse of 2027, everybody that survived was learning how to grow food again.

Re:I for one...

[snowraver1]

Question: Are Chinese gold farmers in the service or agriculture industry?

Re:

[owlnation]

For that matter... is Phishing and Pharming agriculture or service industry? There certainly seems to be no shortage of people employed doing that.

Re:

[Gospodin]

For this to make sense, you need to have an objective sense of the word "value". Describe to me, without any subjective principles, why a car is worth more than the raw iron ore, bauxite, plastics, leather, etc. of which it is composed. Then explain to me how manufacturing produces objective value in a way that "services" do not.

Re:

[Prof.Phreak]

The worth of the car is determined by the price of negotiated pension, health benefits, and mortgage amounts that the members of the auto workers union have. All of which are, in part, determined by the price of transportation, oil, food, etc., which are all in part determined by the price of a car. There's no objective `value' or `worth'.

That being said, many service industries exist by leaching value from others. Examples would include lawyers, brokers, etc.

Re:

[everphilski]

But software development **is** considered a service... and your view of services is narrow. Wal-mart employees, gas station atendees, car wash owners, Jiffy lube workers, etc. are all services.

Guess you'd like to clean your own hotel room?

[ShatteredArm]

Since there is no real value to having someone clean your hotel room, you might as well do it, right? And cook your own burgers? Why do they have chefs, why not just have the customers cook their own etouffee? Maybe if we drive to Iowa to pick up our own corn, we won't have to push money around without adding value. From now on, I'm going to roll my own sushi!

Re:

[Chuckstar]

Economies are not zero-sum games.

Re:

[Mattintosh]

Programming is an "industry" or "manufacturing" job since it produces a final, tangible product (a program). Project management and architect/designer gets lumped in with programming a lot, and they're service jobs (they guide the output of the manufacturing job, but produce no final product in and of themselves). But programming itself is not a service. Code monkeys are digital steering-wheel installers on a code assembly line.

Re:6 Billion+

[ThosLives]

Programming is an "industry" or "manufacturing" job since it produces a final, tangible product (a program).

Actually, the jury is still out on this one, and most people consider programming to, in fact, be a service job.

The ultimate question is this: is a program real wealth or is it just something that has value? A piece of food or a building is real wealth in that it is something which can be used to directly keep a person alive or directly change matter/energy. The value of a piece of wealth may change, but its inherent utility does not (if we neglect things like aging and falling apart). A 1000 square foot house will still be a 1000 square foot house whether people are willing to pay $50000 or $500000 for it. An apple is still an apple regardless of its price.

Software is an admittedly difficult-to-classify area, because in one sense software is indeed a tool: it allows fast computation for design, or accurate control of machinery. In another sense, though, software itself is a unique type of good in that it is not economically scarce: once a particular bit of software is created, there are no practical physical limitations on the number of simultaneous uses of that software. This is the argument against considering software to be wealth.

I think the best way to divide "service" from "not service" is: is the result of the activity new wealth, or just shifting around of wealth? I understand that services create value, but that is different than wealth. Manufacturing and agriculture definitely create wealth; programming may or may not depending on how you look at it. Everything else is clearly a service, because it just shifts the wealth of manufacturing and agriculture around.

My take on the matter is simply this: I cannot eat a haircut, nor will readily-available newsfeeds keep the cold winter air away. An economy must produce wealth to survive; just providing services means that you're just a slave to whomever does in fact produce the actual wealth.

Read: Doctors, Lawyers

[C10H14N2]

...or, basically anything that isn't agricultural or manufacturing. Probably your job, for instance.

Re:

[Dunbal]

Obviously education still remains as a tiny fraction of the economy.