31–40 of 96 posts
Crops are not capable of suffering. Another publication that spreads the idea that inanimate things can suffer, while the true suffering is experienced by workers.
Somehow the hn title manages to put the blame with the Mexicans.
Good. These are some of the worst paying jobs in the country.. because they have used migrants to solve their labor problem, removing the need for them to compete for workers. They need to raise their wages, pay what it really costs for labor. And as a bonus, the increased costs will provide an incentive for future automation.
The migrant workers were that automation. Farmers got the same labor for less cost that return many multiples the value to customers.
Good. These are some of the worst paying jobs in the country.. because they have used migrants to solve their labor problem, removing the need for them to compete for workers. They need to raise their wages, pay what it really costs for labor. And as a bonus, the increased costs will provide an incentive for future automation.
I don't entirely disagree but I also suspect that many Americans would be shocked by the cost of food if workers were paid higher wages (especially if it was done for everyone who touches your food as it travels from the farm to the table) and that most farmers would prefer a phased approach to reform so that crops aren't rotting in the fields.
Even if you multiply the cost by 5 to cover markup as it goes through the chain (of distribution), you have... $2.50 going to $2.75, or ten percent more at retail. Not shocking.
Good. These are some of the worst paying jobs in the country.. because they have used migrants to solve their labor problem, removing the need for them to compete for workers. They need to raise their wages, pay what it really costs for labor. And as a bonus, the increased costs will provide an incentive for future automation.
Good. These are some of the worst paying jobs in the country.. because they have used migrants to solve their labor problem, removing the need for them to compete for workers. They need to raise their wages, pay what it really costs for labor. And as a bonus, the increased costs will provide an incentive for future automation.
"incentive for future automation." The migrant workers were that automation. Farmers got the same labor for less cost that return many multiples the value to customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This an interesting A -> B -> C transition. It was coherent, until the last sentence.
Increased labor costs provide an incentive to reduce labor costs. When labor costs are higher than automation costs, there's an incentive to automate. If you consider the existence of human labor undesirable then automation is always good. If you consider jobs the end-goal of human existence then automation is always bad. In all likelihood you're somewhere in between those, and whether automation is good or not depen…
Actually no. But farmers have created a special problem for themselves:
In a normal industry, wages increase and over a period of time, technology and techniques are developed to reduce the use of labor.. increasing labor productivity and controlling costs. This increased productivity is what allows firms to pay high wages.
In the farm industry, this hasn't occurred. Instead of increasing wages (and stimulating demand for new technology in their industry), they would simply hire more migrants to do the work instead. And so farmworkers are now almost entirely migrants. They've been doing this so long, that they've lost decades of small increases in labor productivity that would have normally occurred (and has occurred in virtually every other industry.. which they are competing with for labor).
So while part of the answer is to increase wages to attract US workers... increasing labor productivity is also required. I think farms would find it quite difficult to compete in the US labor market, while depending on practices that have not been modernized.
We know farm productivity can be increased.. where there's a real cost (the farmers themselves), plenty of tools have been created. But in the specific area of picking, migrants have been used instead.
It's an inconvenient truth of the scaled up agriculture that produces food for us city folk.
Many European countries have formal guest-worker programs. A big consequence of the EU is easier guest-worker access and better working conditions.
The reason the USA immigration hassle never gets solved by congresscritters is this: it's convenient economically to have an underclass of workers with few rights and no recourse for mistreatment. Congresscritters have to say they're TRYING to solve the problem or they appear to be amoral. But they can't actually solve the problem without antagonizing the 1% who pay their re-election campaign bills. So the issue is a perennial theme of chin music. Both major US parties do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This an interesting A -> B -> C transition. It was coherent, until the last sentence.
Increased labor costs provide an incentive to reduce labor costs. When labor costs are higher than automation costs, there's an incentive to automate. If you consider the existence of human labor undesirable then automation is always good. If you consider jobs the end-goal of human existence then automation is always bad. In all likelihood you're somewhere in between those, and whether automation is good or not depen…