Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
Sep 20, 2000 11:45 am, by Mark Blunier
Text :
> Quote from the original article (please read it) : > This is not an accident - it's part of the evolutionary process. > Farming, which once employed a major segment of the population, > now employs less than 2% in the US; there are few rich and innovative > American farmers. Similarly, manufacturing employed over 35% in the US > less than a century ago and this is steadily reducing to > about 15% today. I wasn't going to comment on this, but since you felt it was important enough to draw extra attention to this. You seem to be suggesting that that innovation makes people rich, or that farmers are not innovative. While I disagree with either premise, as a farmer I find the latter offensive. As far as the former, I find that to be in error as well. Along with innovation, several other things need to take place. For instance, patents or secrecy, so that you don't have to share your innovations, and a market for high return from the innovation. Most of the innovative farmers share their innovations. When they try different practices, that they find to be successful, they share it with their neighbors, university research, and farm publications. They don't try to keep it for themselves. Also, your statistics are loaded to give a false impression. While their are some innovative farmers, once they apply their innovations, they are no longer farmers. For example Murphy Farms came up with a system to mass produce hogs. They are no longer farmers, but a corporation. Or farmers selling seed come up with better seed varieties, become more successful, then there focus becomes more on producing seed, that business grows into a seed company. Thus many farmers with successful innovations become non-farmers, ie, not in the 2% any more. Mark Blunier Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.
Reply

• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 22, 2000 8:00 am, by Jim Pinto
  Original comment from Jim Pinto : >> Farming, which once employed a major segment of the population, >> now employs less than 2% in the US; there are few rich and innovative >> American farmers. Similarly, manufacturing employed over 35% in the US >> less than a century ago and this is steadily reducing to >> about 15% today. Mark Blunier was offended : >You seem to be suggesting that that innovation makes people rich, >or that farmers are not innovative. While I disagree with either premise, > as a farmer I find the latter offensive. Jim : My apologies, Mark - I didn't quite mean it as it came out.... My comparison with farming was to indicate that the total population involved in farming has reduced significantly. There are indeed many innovative and wealthy farmers today - I know several personally, in avocado, chicken and hog farming. But, I also know a lot of farmers in Idaho and N. Dakota who are "paid" by the Government to allow fields to lie fallow. Farming productivity produces a surplus in the US. Mark : >Most of the innovative farmers share their innovations. When they >try different practices, that they find to be successful, >they share it with their neighbors, university research, and farm >publications. They don't try to keep it for themselves. Jim : Yes, that is a clear example of the change in paradigm that occurs when a business (like farming) achieves a new and different paradigm. Mark : >While their are some innovative farmers, once they apply there innovations, >they are no longer farmers. For example Murphy Farms came up with a >system to mass produce hogs. They are no longer farmers, but a corporation. >Or farmers selling seed come up with better seed varieties, become more >successful, then there focus becomes more on producing seed, that business >grows into a seed company. Thus many farmers with successful innovations >become non-farmers, ie, not in the 2% any more. Jim : Excellent examples of the metamorphosis that occurs from conventional practices to the birth of new ways to innovate and develop the market, as Ken Crater has suggested in his earlier comments. Ken (previous) : But, in aggregate, it is anything but market stagnation. It more closely resembles the chaos described by Thomas Kuhn in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", in the period between when an old theory/technology is exhibiting its limits and when a new theory/technology becomes accepted. People cast about for new ideas, many different approaches are tried, and ultimately one or more of these new ideas come to the fore. Jim : I like this discussion a lottttt. It is bringing out a lot of new and different ideas, comments, suggestions, thinking! Cheers: jim ----------/ Jim Pinto email : jim@jimpinto.com web: www.JimPinto.com San Diego, CA., USA ----------/
  Reply