Despite economy, Americans don't want farm work

Yes I am able to recognize generalizations. The problem is that you like generalizations in some situations and not in others, as when discussing couples sleeping in tents. In that case you don't like em. I guess today you do like them

Yes, since nobody enjoys that kind of work, not even the migrants. But during the 30's and 40's there were plenty of native-born Americans who didn't know any other work and were willing. But even back then the large farming operations found that they could pay illegals as little as 12 cents an hour, so that pretty much pushed the home-grown laborers out. And growers grumbled at even the hint of interrupted supply of cheap labor, and it has been that way ever since.

Not everyone is willing or able, but there are plenty of able-bodied young people in the metropolitan centers who might sign on if recruited and were provided transportation. It is one thing for Colbert to do it as a publicity stunt, and another to seriously attempt the thing. No harm in trying anyway.

 

And anyone who I've worked for knows I'm not like that.

 

You are right but you seem to be forgetting your census training.

According to the census bureau Hispanic is a race.

 

I maybe way off base here, but so be it. The agriculture business of today has gone the way of the newspaper business. Big corporation have taken over by buying what cannot be passed down to children with out a larger tax or their children do not want to work in that feel. Look at Nancy Pelosi's husband, he is with Del Monte or some, they are doing like wise.

When I was a teen most of the boys I knew did as their fathers, worked a full time job, plus the work on the farm and we kids had school and played ball.

Keep in mind most people were broke or down here they were. Most farms down here were family truck farm or dairy farms and some cattle ranches. But with child labor laws ( which is good) kids don't know much about real physical work or work. What is it, 15 hours a week for a 15 year old? My family would not have made it with out kids helping, no or very little government help.

My father would not have taken anything from the government, he didn't believe the folks who didn't know him should pay for him or his family. It wasn't just my father but most of the fathers that I knew, were as he was. My father and a couple others in our town wouldn't take government disability after WW ll. I guess they felt a lot like him, it was a small price to pay for them and their families to live in this country.

 

That is absolutely false. They are very specific that Hispanic origin is not a race. Hispanic origin is an ethnicity, not a race. On the Census form, it asks if you're Hispanic and then asks your race on a separate question and states that Hispanic origin is not a race.

 

Wow - calm down.

You sure take that little government job seriously don't you? :laugh:

Ok then it is not "racism" - it's "ethnicism".

Feeling better now?

 

It's because I'm quasi-Hispanic and I get annoyed by people attaching racial value to Hispanic origin.

 

I once heard about this kid that did a project for his gifted glass in middle school. The project was about race versus ethnicity. I wonder.....nah, it couldn't be!

:laugh:

 

I have no problem at all with generalizations. What I don't like is generalizations being used to created universal principles and/or false generalizations. So, for instance, I have no problem at all with saying that couples sleeping in tents together would be unwise (notice my first post in that thread where I make such a generalization), but I do have a problem with the argument that since its unwise (generalization) it is therefore a sin (universal truth).

Likewise, it would be just as false to reason that since Americans don't like to take farm jobs (generalization) that I implying that no American is willing to take a farm job (universal truth). Its not that I like generalizations in some situations and not in others, its that you (apparently) don't understand how generalizations work. The only time I will disagree with a generalization is when it unsupported by any sort of facts - then its simply a false generalization.

No disagreement there. Although I am curious who is supposed to pay for the transportation...

 

The companies doing the hiring would include the transportation as part of the cost of doing business.

Companies pay travel expenses for employees in the ordinary course of business quite frequently.

Or the compensation would need be such that it justified the employees paying their own transportation cost to the job site.

 

So what should a business do if they can get legal workers who will pay for their own transportation instead? Should they be expected to take a loss by hiring the inner city people instead of the migrant worker? Its not very capitalistic if they are expected to do so.

 

How would you feel if people denied your whiteness just because your mommy is from Latvia?

 

I couldn't care less. I don't get worked up about such things.

Oh...and people are white in Latvia .

 

I know that. Some people from El Salvador are white, or close enough, like my grandmother. Almost everyone from Argentina is white as cocaine. People need to stop automatically assigning a non-white racial value to Hispanic people. Most Hispanic people are mixed white and Indian, but not all. Some people in my Hispanic grandmother's family have blond hair and stuff. They are white.

 

I don"t care who they hire as long as they are here legally. Legal is the big deal to me! If a company hires a non legal the person doing the hiring should go to prison and by the third time, the CEO should go too.

 

The discussion is concerning employers who cannot find local legal workers.

Why do you wish to make such silly leaps of logic out of the context of the discussion?

A farm operation that cannot find local legal labor could hire distant workers who are in need of and willing to do the work - either providing transportation or paying a wage that will justify the distant workers traveling to the site of employment.

Or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

I don't know where you are coming from, but I've seen blue eyed blond hair men and women in Spain, as well as Argentina and Cuba when I was a teenager. At Hargrave Military Academy when I was there in the 50's I saw many as you say white skinned from Cuba and much of south and central America as well as darker skin kids. At that time all of them were looked upon just as we are white and that is how I still look at them.

 

If providing higher wages or paying for transportation means that the farmer can no longer make a profit sufficient to justify his staying in business, then it is no silly leap of logic. Sure, if farmers are getting rich with little risk and could easily pay the money necessary to entice legal workers to their jobs, then the answer is obvious. But if the farmers already run on a thin margin and the cost of getting competent legal workers in sufficient numbers is prohibitive, then my concerns are valid.

IOW, it does no good to insist on legal workers if that means the farmers go out of business. It can be a bit more complicated than simply insisting that farmers hire legal workers. For one, it can't be assumed that the American consumer will be willing to pay the higher cost for produce that will result if growers have to pay more for their workers.

 

It's a little ironic that given your sensitivity on the issue that you chose to take a job in which a large part of your duties consisted of wandering around asking people if they are Hispanic. :smilewinkgrin:

 

That's all in the past now. My issue isn't asking if people are Hispanic, it's with people who think Hispanic origin is a race.