There are also plenty of people whose economic or other interests are indirectly affected by agricultural interests. If you live in an agriculture-heavy district, anything that has a material negative effect on your community’s economics will indirectly affect you. That may be through a reduction in the amount consumers have to spend in your local area, local tax revenue, farm job loss increasing competition for non-farm jobs, etc.
Yeah good point. I think welfare reforms should mostly be good for these indirect players, since the reforms mostly require agribusinesses to invest more in new infrastructure (e.g. building more barns to give animals more space) and increase staffing (e.g. cage-free farms require more workers than caged farms). But I agree that the indirect players probably don’t see it this way.
There are also plenty of people whose economic or other interests are indirectly affected by agricultural interests. If you live in an agriculture-heavy district, anything that has a material negative effect on your community’s economics will indirectly affect you. That may be through a reduction in the amount consumers have to spend in your local area, local tax revenue, farm job loss increasing competition for non-farm jobs, etc.
Yeah good point. I think welfare reforms should mostly be good for these indirect players, since the reforms mostly require agribusinesses to invest more in new infrastructure (e.g. building more barns to give animals more space) and increase staffing (e.g. cage-free farms require more workers than caged farms). But I agree that the indirect players probably don’t see it this way.