Hacker News Reader

Comment by CaliforniaKarl | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, I don't know what the metric is. I just have this snippet from the article:

> A year earlier, Coffee Review, a trade publication, had given Good Land’s Caturra coffee a score of 91 out of 100, and depending on the roast, brew and time of harvest, the farm’s coffees have scored from the mid-80s to the low 90s on other quality tests.

Unfortunately the article is a bit light on details like which roasteries are selling product. But I imagine some research would find the info, including current varieties and prices.

As for the high price now, I think it's because of the in-development and scarce nature of the product.

So, keep drinking what you're drinking (and kudos for finding your fave), but keep an ear out for future news!

View on HN

Cost of production from variety to variety at this farm is going to be fairly consistent. The reason coffee has traditionally been relegated to developing countries is because of labor costs. To get a good harvest with quality in mind, farmers typically have to do several passes through the fields of coffee trees to select the coffee cherries at their optimal ripeness. Altitude also factors into quality as well, since coffee that slowly ripens due to cooler temps typically translates to a better product. Farms at high altitude can have some pretty gnarly topography.

Coffee farms where attention to quality is less important and raw output more important will plant trees in full sun, nice conventional rows, and then send mechanical harvesters down each row to strip pick the trees, harvesting cherries that might range from under ripe to perfectly ripe to over ripe. Yields might be higher and labor costs lower, but quality suffers and these beans are typically sold in the commodity market.

The need for labor screams subsidy. This is an area where a subsidy could increase labor pool and decrease imports/deficits.

Or simplify the H2-A (temporary agricultural worker) visa process.

No, I think society needs to find a way to fill jobs like that locally.

Okay, I completely missed. Explain me again why should the average American taxpayer subsidize the habits of a snob coffee drinkers?

I'm not arguing for a coffee labor subsidy. I'm arguing for a farm labor subsidy. Or ultimately UBI.

I think it screams the need for price increase. If not enough people want to purchase coffee at the price to support local labor, then either sufficient demand does not exist or a new method of performing the laborious task needs to be invented.

The reason labor is cheaper in other countries is because those people have no other options, and I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a luxury good.

I don't see farmhand labor as a luxury good.

Why exactly should a luxury good be subsidized ?

If the importance of providing people with a way of earning money is so important, why not just cut the middle-man and provide life income ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com