Despite economy, Americans don't want farm work

Well if legalities are not a concern for you then perhaps you would support kidnapping and slavery as an answer.

If the consumer won't pay the price - then you either change your product, your process, or innovate in some other way.

Breaking the law is not the answer.

 

I say that legality isn't the only concern. You say that I don't have any concern for legalities. Thats a blatant straw man.

Kidnapping is a good example. If a person is kidnapped the only concern is not to capture and punish the kidnapper but to do so w/o getting the kidnapped person killed. It would be considered by most to be foolish and irresponsible to have as your only concern, or even primary concern, the apprehension of the kidnapper. Likewise, when speaking of farmers, it would be overly simplistic to hold up legality as the only concern. Its no more reasonable than insisting the police to capture the kidnapper no matter what happens to the kidnapped.

So, if hiring legal workers could mean the ruin of their business, insisting that its all about legality is...unreasonable, at best. And to insist that they play by free market rules when neither the supply or demand ends of their business operate by free market rules is inconsistent.

Insisting on innovation and change by the business owner when wages are artificially high and prices artificially low due to government interference in the market isn't very capitalistic of you I agree that a legal free market system would be best, but the free market system doesn't exist in any real terms. The American worker has come to expect artificially high wages and the American consumer has come to expect artificially low food prices that innovation and change by the farmer is not longer a "free market solution". Its likely to result in the death of an industry w/o any realistic expectations that it will be replaced by an American solution.

Neither is the answer as simplistic as you make it seem. For instance, if American growers go out of business because they can't afford the legal labor, then that makes it more likely
- that jobs move out of the country altogether
- American buyers purchase more foreign goods
- other related industries suffer as well

In short, innovation and change may require a major upheaval that, in the end, is more harmful to American interests than letting things remain as they are.

 

No - either you are concerned with legality or you are not.

To say that you have other concerns than legality is to not be concerned about legality.

Then instead of pusing for the use of illegal immigrant labor why are you not pushing for free markets?

Capitalism is great - it has provided very well for me and my family.

Your approach is that of the defeatist.

You want to quit before you even start.

I bought a business that was in much the same situation as you describe the farming industry to be in.

I changed the way that the employees were paid - and actually paid them much more than they were earning under the old management.

I lowered prices to increase volume - well below the competition - and made huge profits.

I changed the production methods - and actually made the work easier for my employees.

I sold the same business five years later for many times over what I paid for it.

Capitalism works - you should give it a try some time. :smilewinkgrin:

 

True. It's the fruits of the liberal free ride, government will take care of you, philosophy of the past several decades.

 

It is true that either one is concerned for legality or they are not. But it is fallacious to argue that if legality is not your only concern then you are not concerned for legality.

Counter-example:
- Either one is concerned for the well-being of a mother or not
- Pro-lifers are not solely concerned with the well-being of the mother (they are also concerned about the well-being of the unborn child)
- Therefore pro-lifers are not concerned about the well-being of the mother

Obviously absurd. That a position may hold two concerns in tension does not mean they are not concerned about one or the other.

Straw man. Please show me where I have pushed for illegal immigrant labor? Pointing out that the issue is more complicated is not an argument for or against either illegal labor or free markets. Its merely pointing out that considering only the legality aspect is unreasonably oversimplifying the issue.

Straw man (so fun to knock em down isn't it?) I didn't even suggest an approach - I merely pointed out the difficulties inherent in an over-simplistic approach.

I don't dispute that a capitalism works. I point out that farmers aren't really in a situation which could be justly described as capitalistic or free market. For them, both the current low prices and the high wages are subsidized by the government - more so than most other industries. Thats not to make them out to be victims - the farming industry is just as complicit in creating this problem as the government and consumer. However, now that the problem exists, putting the onus solely on the farmers is over-simplistic and likely harmful to everyone's interest.

 

A 25k job would pay 40k in California. A 200k home in my state would go for almost half a million...so yeah, the value of the dollar is different in California than in my state.

 

Someone making the minimum wage or even 25K per year in Ohio isn't buying a 200K house anyway - so the comparison is pointless.

You may be on to something though - the problem is partly that many people have no interest in living within their means.

Instead they expect the means to suit the living that they want.

Which is fine if you can earn it based on merit.

 

Webdog, if this is too much of a derail, I'll start anew...but anyhoo, give me your input, please:

How much of CA's cost of living problem is related solely to housing? I don't see how an economy can survive the house costs there. Houses around me run $150K in Alabama...in most parts of CA, they run $650K-$1 mill. That's insane! If a snap of the fingers could "reset" prices...do you think everything else would fall in line there?

 

Well now you're just showing off, big dog.

Contractors who supply foreign field laborers under the H-2A program provide Greyhound bus tickets to the workers. No reason why they couldn't do the same with US workers.

Now, will this generalization pass your rigorous standards? Actually it's more of an analogy isn't it.

 

dwmoeller1 seems to be looking for a free ride !! :laugh:

 

If it helps you to think that, feel free.

The evidence suggests that while the growers may pay for the transport, they more than make up for it in very low wages and harsh working conditions. After all, those who are bused in have no real choices - they can't go find another job if the boss mistreats them or stiffs them in some way. Once they lose the job they have to go back (and from what I can tell, w/o transport being paid). In short, it doesn't really appear to be free transport for the workers.

So what works out using migrant foreign workers would most likely be an failure when applied to the American worker.

 

If transportation of employees to a job site is a necessary expense of doing business due to local conditions or for what ever other reason.. why is it necessary to find someone else to bear that cost?

It seems that you have focused on something - namely the cost of workers getting to the job - as an excuse for hiring illegal immigrants or for making special provisions for allowing workers from other countries to enter the U.S. in order to take those jobs.

I fail to understand why a more local US citizen would find the cost of transportation from the next city or county to be more cost prohibative than a worker coming from another country.

Pretty much everone agrees that outsourcing jobs from the U.S. to other countries is a bad thing.

What is the difference between outsourcing jobs and importing foreign workers to take jobs in the U.S.?

Why do liberals, Demoncrats and others on the left not object to the effective outsourcing of jobs that occurs by importing labor?

 

Its not necessary. I merely point out that the added expense, combined with the high wage expectation make it economically unfeasible. Now, IF we were to do away with welfare programs, then wage expectations would almost certainly come down to realistic levels for this sort of work. So, I am not saying that this sort of thing can't work, but that its economically unfeasible given the current labor and welfare laws.

In short, putting the onus on the farmers is unrealistic and inconsistent.

1. I don't seek to find an excuse for illegal or foreign labor. I merely point out the economic realities that make it the only current workable solution. Because of current labor and welfare laws, one can't cut the growers off from immigrant labor sources w/o killing their business. Any solution has to be a cooperative solution.

2. The costs of transportation are not free from the immigrant worker. As a general rule they more than pay for their ride in lower wages. The reason such a program would be cost prohibitive for the US worker is that the US worker (as a general rule - there are certainly many who will but not enough to fill the need) won't accept the low wages that the immigrant worker will. In short, the US worker won't work for a wage which makes a profitable operate possible for the growers.

3. As to this being a Democratic thing, I will just note that the H2A law was passed in 1986...when both the White House and Senate were Republican controlled. Evidently Republicans and those on the right also realized the economic necessity of allowing foreign labor.

4. Outsourcing and foreign labor are different in this respect: Outsourcing reflects innovation and adjustment by businesses to avoid the high costs of doing business in the US. Foreign labor reflects an attempt to keep US businesses afloat when they can't innovate or adjust. That farmers can't pick up their land and go to a different country, and they are locked into certain types of crops due to climate and operation costs. In short, foreign labor, while not the best solution, is still better than having the US grower going under and ending up with the industry getting *totally* outsourced to foreign growers. Foreign labor at least keeps the US farms in operation.

 

Thanks, I will. And if you think that your arguments are the better ones just because you can parse words better, then feel free.

Yes, obviously illegals have little recourse in situations like that, and that, along with very low wages, was the attraction to begin with. In fact there have been recent cases where US workers have been left standing in the fields waiting for buses that never arrived because those buses were off picking up more foreign field hands at the border.

I don't think anyone has said that the current situation is all the fault of growers. As you say, there are other issues involved such as govt regulations, the attempt to keep food prices down etc. But it is big ag that always complains the loudest when any crackdown is discussed.

If some future Administration ever attempts to enforce the border and the big farms have to rely on native labor it is workable, they have done so in the past and could again. You speak of 'artificially inflated wages' but the opposite is probably more true: artifically deflated wages due to our close proximity to a 3rd world economy.

 

This is an excellent point. Proximity to Mexico and its third-world labor force (and subsequent wage demands) completely complicates matters, IMHO

 

My children have been working on our farm since they were old enough to walk.

You'd never know it by the number of calls I got all summer asking for work.

 

Right, thats all I am doing is parsing words...

Nor have I argued that anyone is saying so. However, most everyone is clearly putting the onus on the fact of immigrant workers and the growers. There is resistance to recognizing both the supply and demand aspects of this problem.

Well sure, thats because the crackdown is so one sided. It hurts their livelihood while not affecting the central problem at all - that its not economically feasible to depend on non-immigrant workers. Thats not to defend any who hire illegal workers, its simply a recognition that illegal workers are a symptom of a larger problem.

The conditions of the past no longer apply. Welfare and food subsidies are such that trying to bar immigrant labor is more likely to result in a major depression of the industry and a subsequent influx of foreign imports to provide for the cheap food people expect.

1. That being close to a 3rd world economy might deflate wages I won't dispute. However, this would not be an *artificial* deflation - merely the natural result of a free-market system.

2. But more significant than being close to a 3rd world economy is our labor and welfare laws. These are not free-market operations so they are artificial. And they most often work contrary to free-market operations. So, even if a person does not work, they can still earn a "wage" which is, after considerations of travel, time and other expenses, often higher than what could be earned at a job which an immigrant worker fills. So, even if we took every immigrant worker out of the US, there still wouldn't be a sufficient supply of native workers since they can "earn" comparative "pay" by *not* taking the job. Furthermore, in any industry where workers can organize, wages are comparatively even higher. So, when considering whether to take the farm job, the unemployed not only compares this with the "wages" of not working, but also to the pay of the unionized worker. Both of these work to make the unskilled farm labor an economically absurd choice for the native worker. No longer is the decision simply a matter of judging whether the pay is fair for a unskilled manual laborer, but instead its judged in comparison to the pay scale artificially adjusted by current welfare and labor laws.

 

A lot of that depends on the type of farming as well as the area. Some areas have a large pool of willing workers in the immediate area which are available at the times needed. So, for instance, I doubt farmers in Iowa will ever experience a real shortage of native labor. The supply and demand of labor in that area fit together very well.

Not all growing industries are in the same situation.

Also, number of applicants can be misleading as well. If an migrant worker starts, the odds are extremely good that they will be there for the whole season. Yet the same can't be said for a local native worker. There are good economic reasons why the migrant will be more likely to last. So, while there might be 12 native applicants for a job, it doesn't necessarily reflect how many will actually do the work for the pay, and for the complete season.

 

Absolutely. After all we don't have millions of Canadians clamoring to come pick our crops for less than minimum wage.

 

Well look at what happened with cotton and wheat harvesting; automation happened, and now the big crews are no longer needed. Likely the same would take place if all that cheap labor suddenly disappeared and crops that are now picked by hand would probably be picked by machines. Robotics. Such things are under developement.