結果，塞達卡60%的農用地都是由聯合收割機收割的，從而減少了對勞動力的需求，1979年灌溉季節就出現了這種情況。然後，在1980年，這個數字增加到80%，讓帕蒂的工人們只能選擇移植。這個問題肯定導致了集體行動，因為依靠工資勞動的四分之一的農村人口被排除在技術發展的方程式之外。因此，這是一場社會運動，導致工人和帕蒂工人的無助，他們的工作是幫助季前種植(斯科特和詹姆斯，1985)。廣大農民在聯合收割機的幫助下選擇了播音的做法，這是當時出現問題的根本原因。不久,缺乏這些帕蒂工人領導對相關工作情況顯著降低勞動者的需求被認為導致需求減少,從而減少工資價格的本質(盧卡́cs &György, 1971)。這種情況主要影響的是貧困農民，也就是低於貧困水平的人。他們必須生存，因為他們的生活依賴於每天的工資;結果，他們搬到大城市找工作。
在這種情況下，機械化鼓勵了大規模農業的選擇，這只對富裕的群體有利，因為他們從收穫付款從小塊地轉到與土地租賃有關的直接付款。在綠色革命發生之前，農民應該根據僱傭一定數量的勞動力來決定耕種多少土地。大型農民使用聯合收割機後，由於在更大的土地上耕作的能力更強，他們獲得了更大的利潤。因此，他們考慮從貧困的農民手中收回租來的土地，因為農民必須為插秧機和聯合收割機付款(Gibson, Timothy & Mark Douglas, 2007)。然而，大農場主們並沒有採用殘暴地提高租金的陰險手段。另一方面，他們在自己的文化標準範圍內選擇了另一種方式，以此作為他們的一個親戚需要一部分土地來耕種的藉口。這又造成了另一個嚴重的問題，當時擁有土地面積不超過2.83英畝的農民，也就是說大約61.8%的農民只擁有不到2.83英畝的土地。
As a result, sixty percent of the patty lands of Sedaka were being harvested by the combine harvesters eliminating the requirement of labour force and it was seen during the 1979 irrigated season. Then, in 1980, it increased up to 80% leaving the patty workers behind with the only option of transplanting. This problem definitely led a collective action as one-quarter of the population of the village depending on the wage labour got eliminated from the equation of technological development. So, it was a social movement causing helplessness of the wage labourer and patty workers whose work was to helping the pre-season planting (Scott & James, 1985). The large farmers opted for the practice of broadcasting with the help of combine harvester and it was the fundamental reason for the problematic issue arose during that time of situation. Soon, the lack of working related to these patty workers led towards a situation when significant decrease in labourer requirements was perceived causing less demand and consequently decreasing nature of price of wages (Lukács &György, 1971). This situation mainly affected the poor farmers otherwise known as the people below poverty level. They had to survive as they lives subsisted on daily wages; as a result, they moved to larger cities in search of work.
Mechanization in this scenario had encouraged the option of large-scale farming which was only beneficial for the rich groups as they moved from harvest payment from land patty post towards direct payment associated with the lease of the lands. Before the occurrence of the green revolution, based on the hiring of a certain amount of labourers, a farmer was supposed to decide about farming on the specific amount of land. After using the combine harvesters by large farmers, they gained larger profits due to more capable nature of farming in larger plots. So, they thought about taking back the rented land from the poor farmers, because the farmers had to pay off for the transplanters and the combine harvesters (Gibson, Timothy & Mark Douglas, 2007). However, the large farmers did not follow the sinister method of raising the rent atrociously. On the other hand, they chose another way within the boundary of their cultural standards in a manner of excuse that one of their kin was in need of a part of the land for farming. This situation caused another serious problem that cost the peasants who at that time owned not more than 2.83 acres, which means around 61.8% peasants only owned less than a land area of 2.83 acres.