Submitted by Ranew t3_112xpxw in technology
Rogueish1 t1_j8mpi6c wrote
What's there to consider? People should be able to repair items they've purchased
bewjujular t1_j8n85ax wrote
Yeah, why stop at farming equipment?
GullibleDetective t1_j8nzbu7 wrote
Fun fact years ago comptia famous for the literal cert that many businesses agree certifies that you can probably repair computer hardware joined a lobby against the right to repair bill.
They later retracted that
SteilanX t1_j8o4usg wrote
Wow... Sadly I didn't knew this before buying a new certification.
andricathere t1_j8p4gn3 wrote
Certification is a money making business. It makes money, that doesn't mean it does anything else of value. It's a middleman industry.
who_you_are t1_j8o9hgf wrote
I wonder if this is either because farming companies have less defense to protect themselves or if farms aren't going well (expensive to start, not lot of peoples continuing in that field) so if they could cut off experience.
Maybe farmers are also angry and make it know to high political peoples.
Maybe those political peoples don't see the issue for the general public since you can usually easily buy a new goods right now while on the farming industry... They have a monopole and seems to be slow in anyway.
radiocate t1_j8obia2 wrote
It's greed. Some fucking bean counter at the top had the bright idea to change a purchase of equipment into purchasing a license to use that equipment, and when people kept buying anyway thought they'd stumbled on a goldmine.
Has nothing to do with liability or protecting an industry, it was entirely born of greed.
who_you_are t1_j8ofauk wrote
I'm watching Louis Rossmann so I know their greed. But even us, we can see it with stuff targeted for us.
I already hate marketing because they lie on everything. Show me the specs, then the specs (if possible) in my common situation (it change, eg. Battery over temperature). Then, if you want put common use, then your bullshit generic marketing.
I also do electronics (not a lot though, and as personal). What they call "datasheet" (read it specifications) is gold by modern standard. You want to know the output at 10, 30, 60 degree? 3.3v, 5v, 50v? Here, take this! Usually the first section describes the product with general usages. Then the features.
All that in a short way. Except the first paragraph that somewhat look like generic marketing blabla, the other part are straight to the point.
All companies want to get all your money. If they could, they would just get it straight from your pay check without providing anything.
The way to go around is with subscription (free money on a regular base) and closed part (so you need to buy exclusive from them so they can get all the money).
Also, and it is a damn big issue, "we can barely do anything". Do you have the money and knowledge to start your own farming equipment manufacturer? To produce cellphones? Cars?... I would like, but I can't. I won't even be able to do 1/90 of that.
If I could, I would almost sell it for the price to build. Make sure management don't eat all the money for no reason (like their wage). trying to block wage increase if the bottom get any, reduce stupid layout to be always on the low hierarchy one (you know, the one actually making money to the company?)
Unfortunately, life suck and all that is impossible.
TheRealStorey t1_j8rfk04 wrote
The US government subsidizes farming directly, providing subsidized food and leading to industrial farming and massive lobbying.They now have lobbyists saying you could subsidize us less if we could repair our own equipment which appears as a win-win. The government (in theory) would subsidize them less, keeping them profitable and they've satiated the lobbyists keeping them happy. Appearance and actuality are all that matters with these bills, long as it appears to be helping Joe Everyman (or farmers) and kick backs their donors everyone's happy.I'm not saying it's bad, but this is the only reason farmers are being considered and the very least it can do is open the door to expand this legislation, but it'll come down to corporate vs. private interests and I don't see it going any further.
E_Snap t1_j8qyx2r wrote
Because it’s dangerous to the powers that be when rural folks and city folks start to agree about something. They want to manufacture another schism so that there isn’t enough of a base to push for more change.
Similar_Value1060 t1_j8np3e7 wrote
They gotta ask the people at john deere lobbying them first.
Rogueish1 t1_j8npiaj wrote
Lobbying should also be illegal. Nothing more than bribery, which is illegal as is
Similar_Value1060 t1_j8nq9ec wrote
Lobbying is the reason why places like AZ have water leases with middle eastern countries. They get “donations” then they allow foreign countries to grow water intensive crops that screw over the people who actually live there. This is just one example that has nothing to do with the article, but im sure everyone agrees that lobbying is destroying the country. Encourages our leaders to offer up our resources, automotive companies to monopolize maintaining your vehicles, and the military industrial complex to mobilize. Yucky! Follow the money!
tuscanspeed t1_j8oji10 wrote
>but im sure everyone agrees that lobbying is destroying the country.
Nope. Both positive and negative outcomes occur due to the lobbying.
You have a scapegoat here. Nothing more.
Similar_Value1060 t1_j8pcak6 wrote
Money in politics is why your vote no longer matters dipshit. Even a wrong clock is right twice a day.
tuscanspeed t1_j8rz4ia wrote
/spends millions lobbying to protect national forests
/votes to protect national forests
/protection passes
I don't see it.
barbarianbob t1_j8p9tfc wrote
My wife used to work for a non-profit organization that helped adults with developmental disabilities navigate life. The nonprofit was always underfunded.
They had a lobbyist (who represented a bunch of other similar nonprofits) who would go to the capitol and lobby on their behalf.
Not all lobbyists are bad.
It's more the "use PACs to circumvent political donation cap" that really fucked everything up.
AnacharsisIV t1_j8pfsae wrote
There is nothing wrong with lobbying. Writing to your congresscritter to say "tell the cops to stop shooting unarmed black teenagers", congratulations, makes you a lobbyist. There's literally no way to stop lobbying without also trampling on the first amendment.
SnooTomatoes1445 t1_j8sl14f wrote
In Iowa, a lobbyist can’t buy a beer for the person they’re trying to lobby. In Washington they can send them around the world at the company’s expense. That’s what’s broken.
Frosty-Raspberry9920 t1_j8on8h3 wrote
Uhm, no. Lobbying is literally just telling an elected official what you want them to do. Not sure how a democracy could function without it.
Rogueish1 t1_j8rh2bf wrote
Actually, lobbyists pay government officials to advocate what they want. Think you need to go back to 9th grade global studies there guy
garlicroastedpotato t1_j8o6t57 wrote
Okay, so here's the broad issue.
John Deere is kind of a monopolsitic farming equipment manufacturer. They're in cahoots with the US government on this. Every time there's "farming aid" that the US shifts around the world it's always John Deere equipment. This is because John Deere is the world's only clear American farming equipment company that manufacturers just about everything in the US. It's a huge boon to the US economy. Their two biggest rivals are AGCO (who work under a number of brands including Massey, Caterpillar, and Fendt), Kubota, and CNH Industrial (Case and New Holland). The US government wants to protect John Deere because the US government has decided it doesn't want to collaborate with Europe on things... they don't want to be dependent on Europe for anything (see: US spending trillions of dollars on chips manufacturing when they could just buy from Europe instead)
Farmers have a choice when it comes to farm equipment. I've actually done farming equipment acquisitions. When you talk to farming equipment sales people they're more than happy to give you a table with the projected income earnings you would get from their equipment based on what type of crop you have in mind. For most farmers it makes these decisions a lot easier. A harvester that is just 1CM wider might result in a 5% gross profit for that harvest.
So basically, in terms of your life time investment in that piece of equipment (including maintenance, purchase price, loans, etc.) John Deere is just always a clear winner on these tables. Because of this farmers have chosen John Deere wherever they can. It's the world's most popular brand.
John Deere used this position to add even more value to their equipment packages to make them even more valuable.... and it's a part of the purchase now. By signing on to a maintenance contract with John Deere you get an even cheaper piece of equipment but now you have to pay exclusively JD for maintenance.
And I can't say this enough... farmers know what they're getting into when they get into these agreements. They have competitors they can go to that don't have these contracts. They're choosing John Deere because it's the one that'll earn them the most money. Most companies have a warranty that operates like this for two years and farmers are very happy with that (until they void their warranty by trying to fix it themselves). JD is offering a lifetime warranty on their equipment... as long as you don't try to fix it themselves.
John Deere settled the issue. They made it so that farmers could fix their own equipment and be provided their own manuals as long as they re-signed their contract. The new contract would require that they cannot sue John Deere for any liability issues, they have to use OEM parts and they can't tamper with the DEF system (federal law requires all new farming equipment to have it).
But some feel like this just isn't good enough. They feel like John Deere should just not be allowed to provide these types of contracts at all. The US drags their feet on this because they're in bed with John Deere... but they also don't know what happens next. Like if you say that these contracts are void... are you fucking over a lot of people?
Because if these contracts are void for farmers wanting to fix their equipment... they're certainly void for John Deere. All these farmers paid MORE for these tractors on the basis that they were getting a lifetime maintenance contract. If that arrangement is void does it also mean JD is no longer liable for providing repairs to the people who want it for free? It's a huge cost savings for JD if the solution becomes to just make these kinds of contracts illegal.
By also going against an iconic exclusively American brand you're also opening the doors of foreign competition... which means US job lay offs... which will make some politicians politically vulnerable. Farmers can choose a lot of brands... they choose JD... almost entirely because of price but also because of US and state level endorsements. It's similar to a lot of the "Buy American" proposals from the US government.... proposals that have always been illegal by the standards of USMCA... but that the US illegally continues to push. It'd have a similar impact to say, the US government deciding to buy a series of fighter jets from France.
Rogueish1 t1_j8olail wrote
Here's the issue with this.. monopolies, as with bribery, are illegal in the great USA
garlicroastedpotato t1_j8oozmj wrote
It's not a pure monopoly. It's more like how Google has a monopoly on web searches... but then there's still Bing.
dungone t1_j8putv6 wrote
The Chicago School of conservative richonomics really perverted everyone’s concept of what a monopoly is. Monopolies used to be understood as any anti-competitive trusts or practices against any of the stakeholders who were in a position of not having another choice. Whether the workers, customers, shareholders, etc. Right-wing propaganda changed this around to require a company to have 100% market share.
fredlllll t1_j8olvn3 wrote
you forgot to mention how you need software to unlock the machine again after a switch failed and you replaced it. software that costs a lot of money or isnt even available to farmers. so you replace the switch and the machine tells you "go to dealer to unlock huehue" but you cant move the machine, and calling the dealer out costs you days in time
garlicroastedpotato t1_j8opw50 wrote
Actually, every piece of farming equipment has this as a standard feature. According to the article those sorts of things wouldn't be changing with this law because they would mean removing safeguards.
The law proposed would make something like the MOU JD signed into law in some states. It's not certain what consequences this would have with the contracts. Which is why they're only considering this and not doing this. They have to study the particular impacts of this decision. They don't want to sign it into law and find out that they made a law that creates a recall issue that cripples agricultural for a year.
Ranew OP t1_j8oxd6r wrote
The MOU with Farm Bureua was a promised continuation of the status quo and probably the simplest PR both could do.
Ranew OP t1_j8owfde wrote
I can get into software for $1800. That's cheaper than the radiator I put a fan through last harvest. For the price of the radiator, I can have OEM cable and software or third-party that comes with a laptop.
AnacharsisIV t1_j8pguby wrote
> they don't want to be dependent on Europe for anything (see: US spending trillions of dollars on chips manufacturing when they could just buy from Europe instead)
Things like food and microchips are vital to the persistence of the American state. Every country should strive for self-sufficiency in those areas and some other significant industrial capacities. God forbid more wars break out in Europe and we were dependent on them for our chip manufacture; well we just have wait until that war is over (or end it ourselves) if we want chips... or we can see that problem coming and build our own chip factories. The same thing goes with food and that would logically extend to the farming equipment used to create the high yields to feed a country that takes up most of a continent.
It's not unreasonable to want all of this done domestically.
tuscanspeed t1_j8ojrqr wrote
>they can't tamper with the DEF system
talonfender t1_j8onek3 wrote
Right? I couldn’t think about anything besides how much this sounds like a dystopia when I read the title. How was it not the default option that people can repair their possessions?
scarabic t1_j8qko3r wrote
“Gubamint reglumations? On my damn tractor, now? Get a rope!”
“No, no, grandpa these are good regulations!”
“Humph. You ain’t one of them wokes now, is ya?”
dungone t1_j8psc0f wrote
I am against this. Because it shouldn’t be limited to farming equipment. Once the Republican farmers get what they wanted, they’ll be against it for anyone else.
[deleted] t1_j8qfe96 wrote
[deleted]
Rogueish1 t1_j8rho9c wrote
Share holders make more than enough from their investment. If I buy something, damn right if it breaks, I'LL be the one to fix it. Always have, always will
ICK_Metal t1_j8ns8eq wrote
You can… the wording of this was poorly chosen.
Edit: not saying the OP needs to reword it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments