Who picks your food in the USA?

[_canpakes]

Well, for starters, they’re getting paid, period.

Have you ever seen the movie Angel City, Canpakes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhlLu_bwivE

This is a good answer to who picks your food in the USA.

"What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The more I pick the more I get paid, right?"

Yes, I've seen this movie made almost 4 decades ago. What point do you wish to make from it? Here's a few you can choose from:

A. Replace those damn brown and black folks with white folks, so that the white folks can get screwed over, instead!

B. Replace those damn brown and black folks earning just about nothing with actual slaves, because it makes that crazy bookkeeping scheme unnecessary and keeps everyone happier!

C. Isn't it terrible how Mexicans came into this country and forced fruit and vegetable growers to pay them crappy wages?

[_ajax18]

I had no point with it. I just thought it was applicable to the original post.

We paid a very high price for bringing African slaves into the US to serve as cheap domestic labor. What makes you think Latin American cheap labor will be any different? There's always a hidden cost to cheap labor. Maybe we should learn from history and do our own work for a change.


Tell me how what Mr. Creedy was doing was any better than slavery?

[_canpakes]

There's always a hidden cost to cheap labor. Maybe we should learn from history and do our own work for a change.

Then you're going to have to talk to your good, conservative neighbors about it:

A. American employers have to be willing to pay a reasonable wage for this work,

B. American workers have to be willing to do this work,

C. American consumers have to be willing to pay enough to make it work.

Brown folks really aren't the actual problem in all of this.

[_ajax18]

Then you're going to have to talk to your good, conservative neighbors about it:

A. American employers have to be willing to pay a reasonable wage for this work,

B. American workers have to be willing to do this work,

C. American consumers have to be willing to pay enough to make it work.

Brown folks really aren't the actual problem in all of this

I couldn't agree more that brown folks aren't the actual problem. They're only here collecting our tax dollars and taking our jobs because those in power allow them to do so. It's big business republicans that want the cheap labor and democrat politicians who want the cheap votes. Those are the two forces that stop the border from being enforced.

[_Chap]

I couldn't agree more that brown folks aren't the actual problem. They're only here collecting our tax dollars and taking our jobs because those in power allow them to do so. It's big business republicans that want the cheap labor and democrat politicians who want the cheap votes. Those are the two forces that stop the border from being enforced

So the mass of ordinary people, including Trump's core voter base, would, in your view, be perfectly happy to pay the higher food prices that would be the consequence of paying agricultural workers well enough to attract American workers to do those jobs?

What evidence do you have for that?

Your statement that 'cheap votes' can be gained by keeping food prices down suggests the contrary.

[_subgenius]

There's always a hidden cost to cheap labor. Maybe we should learn from history and do our own work for a change.

Then you're going to have to talk to your good, conservative neighbors about it:

A. American employers have to be willing to pay a reasonable wage for this work,

B. American workers have to be willing to do this work,

C. American consumers have to be willing to pay enough to make it work.

Brown folks really aren't the actual problem in all of this.

A. Is it your position that Conservatives are solely/more responsible for wages paid for "this work"?
B. American workers are not willing to do this work ?
C. That American consumers are not willing to pay enough to make it work?

and how are Brown folks not part of the problem? are Brown folks excluded from your A, B, and C scenarios above? Is this just a white folks problem because "only whites"?

footnote:
A. Does a reasonable wage for this work include Union dues? Do Labor Unions that allow illegal immigrant membership have any influence on this wage and are these Unions primarily Conservative? Does the promotion of illegal immigrant employment promote "reasonable wages"? Are you aware of the several labor unions involved in "this type of work"? Is there one political party way more heavily involved in labor unions?
B. Let us set aside the fact that in the industrialized world, Americans work more (longer days, less vacation, retire later)...Now focusing on "this work", who are the Americans that would otherwise be doing this work?...it is usually physically demanding or menial, correct? Not usually a "skilled" worker or "professional/educated" worker...so maybe a high school education is not even required - like a young healthy person would be a good fit, correct?...it is well documented that most immigrants (especially undocumented) are men ages 18 to 39....and let us not forget that this type of "work" is not suited to persons who are looking to put down roots in the community...the work is seasonal and relative to harvest periods, these workers are immigrants to our country but they necessarily migrate across jobs (to and fro).
So who are the Americans that could compete in this market?
The share of 16- to 24-year-olds saying they simply did not want to work rose from an average 29.5% in 2000 to an average 39.4% by 2015 - is this demographic primarily Conservative or Liberal? (ages 25 to 54 remained mostly unchanged and 55+ actually decreased).
....and is there any irony in the historical fact that early Spanish colonists utilized African slaves because the Spanish colonist were unwilling to do that sort of work?
C. Your notion sounds like some sort of free market mumbo jumbo - shouldn't the government just raise taxes on white people and subsidize ?

[_Chap]

There's always a hidden cost to cheap labor. Maybe we should learn from history and do our own work for a change.

Then you're going to have to talk to your good, conservative neighbors about it:

A. American employers have to be willing to pay a reasonable wage for this work,

B. American workers have to be willing to do this work,

C. American consumers have to be willing to pay enough to make it work.

Brown folks really aren't the actual problem in all of this.

A. Is it your position that Conservatives are solely/more responsible for wages paid for "this work"?
B. American workers are not willing to do this work ?
C. That American consumers are not willing to pay enough to make it work?
...

An odd set of responses from subgenius.

On A: frankly, I don't much care one way or another whether your average employer of seasonal agricultural labor is more likely to be Rep or Democrat. I'd guess the former, but it remains certain that the labor shortage that would result from the exclusion of currently working migrant labourers won't be solved without wages that have been increased to a level that will attract Americans (though we can't be sure what that level is). Present levels certainly will not.

On B: Yup, looks like it. There are of course also some signs (as in the case of the Mar a Lago hiring policy for restaurant workers) that some employers recruit seasonal migrant labour preferentially to Americans. We don't, of course, know what wage level would be enough to attract t sufficient Americans into this kind of seasonal work. It might turn out to be higher than anyone is willing to pay for (see C).

On C: The only way to settle that question definitively would be to run on a political platform of a big hike in wages for seasonal agricultural labor, and be upfront with voters that this will raise the cost of their weekly shop. There are no signs that anybody much is about to do that. But let's put it this way: I don't think anybody is going to act on the basis that 'pay more so they get paid more' is likely to be a big vote winner. What do you think?

Overall: it is quite possible that it is economically and electorally impossible for the US to harvest a large proportion of its crops without seasonal migrant labour. If you think it's worth the risk, just try it and see ...

[_ajax18]

So the mass of ordinary people, including Trump's core voter base, would, in your view, be perfectly happy to pay the higher food prices that would be the consequence of paying agricultural workers well enough to attract American workers to do those jobs?

Why not? We're perfectly fine with paying higher prices for European and Asian goods until we win this trade war.

[_Chap]

So the mass of ordinary people, including Trump's core voter base, would, in your view, be perfectly happy to pay the higher food prices that would be the consequence of paying agricultural workers well enough to attract American workers to do those jobs?

Why not? We're perfectly fine with paying higher prices for European and Asian goods until we win this trade war.

So the mass of ordinary people, including Trump's core voter base, would, in your view, be perfectly happy to pay the higher food prices that would be the consequence of paying agricultural workers well enough to attract American workers to do those jobs?

Why not? We're perfectly fine with paying higher prices for European and Asian goods until we win this trade war.

Half a minute - let me get this straight. You think that at some time in the future European and Asian food products will get cheaper than they are, do you? Let's assume you are right

But you believe that even when that happens, US consumers will still be willing to buy American food products, which will have become considerably more expensive since the relevant wages will have been increased to the point where American workers are willing to do the harvesting?

Really?

[_subgenius]

An odd set of responses from subgenius.

arguable, but since we're throwing out trivial commentary -
An odd set of responses from Chap.

On A: frankly, I don't much care one way or another whether your average employer of seasonal agricultural labor is more likely to be Rep or Democrat. I'd guess the former, but it remains certain that the labor shortage that would result from the exclusion of currently working migrant labourers won't be solved without wages that have been increased to a level that will attract Americans (though we can't be sure what that level is). Present levels certainly will not.

Maybe, maybe not...the American demographic capable of fulfilling this workforce simply does not want to work.

On B: Yup, looks like it. There are of course also some signs (as in the case of the Mar a Lago hiring policy for restaurant workers) that some employers recruit seasonal migrant labour preferentially to Americans.

No, it is a market driven employment.

We don't, of course, know what wage level would be enough to attract t sufficient Americans into this kind of seasonal work. It might turn out to be higher than anyone is willing to pay for (see C).

And it might not...the assumption that it is purely wage level driven is interesting, but unlikely.

On C: The only way to settle that question definitively would be to run on a political platform of a big hike in wages for seasonal agricultural labor, and be upfront with voters that this will raise the cost of their weekly shop.

There are likely more indicative methods that provide more accurate measures for consumer behavior than the ballot.

There are no signs that anybody much is about to do that. But let's put it this way: I don't think anybody is going to act on the basis that 'pay more so they get paid more' is likely to be a big vote winner. What do you think?

I don't quite understand what you are asking about...i know the Democrats often act on the "they pay more so you get paid more" premise.

Overall: it is quite possible that it is economically and electorally impossible for the US to harvest a large proportion of its crops without seasonal migrant labour. If you think it's worth the risk, just try it and see ...

I agree that seasonal migrant labor is integral, but no one is talking about erasing that force...it is just whether that force is made of up of illegal/undocumented immigrants or citizens.
Anyway, it is not "impossible" as the robot force increases. Automation is the single biggest threat to this type of workforce in America.
Consider this side-story...Years ago a Chinese delegate came to our offices to give a presentation on their Marble/Granite export capabilities (our company uses hella-lot of granite and marble). We were already aware of how it much cheaper to have stone quarried and processed overseas than in the States..heck it is even cheaper to quarry stone here (eg Vermont) and ship it to Italy for processing and then ship it back to the States than having it all done Stateside...yep, those stone Union wages are just that cost prohibitive.
Anyway, the Chinese went through their presentation and the inquiry was made about the modern quality of processing equipment at their production facilities (laser guided cutting tools and what-not)...the delegation quickly noted how everything is done "by hand" because they cannot afford to displace so many people with automation....like how Chinese cigarettes are still hand rolled by hundreds of workers, etc.
So it became apparent how their is a critical mass for the displacement of labor by automation and when comparing Chinese population to American it would seem that "there is plenty of time" for that concern....but it is not just robots that can displace a labor force. Yes, people may seemingly not want this job or that job because the necessity has not reached critical mass as of yet...but did the Chinese make the right call? Should they not have chosen the robot work force over their own people? Would not the efficiencies offered eventually allow for all those workers to enjoy entitlement after entitlement ? free from the constraints of "working for a living"?

So, Chinese granite and marble is everywhere in the States, most likely your recent upgraded countertop - but it is inferior quality...it is all you would expect from a Chinese knock-off...a.k.a., you get what you pay for...nevertheless, we chose to not do business with the Chinese that day (though I scored some great tea) and we still do not....our stone suppliers still source from South America and Italy - because yeah, America is still cost-prohibitive to Americans.