you can’t have competitive wages on a free market as long as somebody else is willing to do it for less. That’s why migrant labor would have to end first.
Didn’t we try that here after Brexit? From what I remember, farmers were having to let crops go to waste because Brits didn’t want the jobs, even after wages were raised. Most farm work is seasonal, people don’t really want that instability.
yeah, there’s a serious argument to be made here that the people in england, USA simply don’t want these kinds of jobs.
then again, the thing isn’t so simple. Why would people in the USA not want these jobs, but mexicans are fine with them? is it because the people are spoiled? is it for other reasons?
Personally, the job itself I wouldn’t mind, but it’s what comes with it. It’s seasonal work. How would I consistently support myself outside the season? How would I get a stable home if I’m living in farm accommodation while working?
In the UK at least, these were often men coming in from the EU. They could send money back home to their families, where it would go further.
A resident Brit with kids to support isn’t going to go for this kind of job. As I said, no stability. They’d have to pay enough to make up for months of no work over winter. Which they can’t do as their margins are already low and supermarkets don’t pay enough and so much produce goes to waste because it’s a bit blemished or wonky.
Tbh, I’m not convinced that this would really happen. There’s not that much price elasticity to a lot of agricultural products. If the strawberries cost too much, most people will just not be able to afford strawberries and thus will just not buy them but instead buy less labour-intensive produce instead.
One could argue that if strawberries cannot be produced in a way that earns everyone involved a living wage then we shouldn’t produce strawberries, and that’s a totally valid point to argue.
It’s also fair to argue that we need to cut out capitalism’s inherent inefficiency of having to feed the capitalists in the process who did contributed nothing in terms of labour. But on the one hand, this hasn’t worked out that great in the past and on the other hand this would require more of a change than to just kick out migrants.
What would be more likely to happen (since we’ve seen it happen during Covid already) is that the wages will go up, but the locals still won’t do the work, thus strawberries will rot on the fields, the shelves will be empty, the prices will go up, but not enough to cover the losses for the farmers and the farmers will plant something less labour-intense next season.
(Wages would have to go way, way up before people will voluntarily quit their job in an AC’d office to work on a field.)
We are contemplating compulsory service by all Americans. “Free Market” is not a factor here. Against that alternative, we can consider a wide variety of non-free options for influencing market behavior.
You describe workers exploiting themselves: being willing to “do it for less” than a living wage. Correcting minimum wage to be a living wage keeps their slave-like desperation from influencing the labor market.
Beyond that, directly subsidizing American ag laborers corrects the follow-on market effects of anti-famine subsidies on agriculture. Ag subsidies depress food prices and tank farm revenue, forcing farmers to exploit workers. Ag subsidies directly to ag laborers corrects that undue influence on the labor market.
you can’t have competitive wages on a free market as long as somebody else is willing to do it for less. That’s why migrant labor would have to end first.
Yes you can. The issue is that it isn’t one market, it’s two: the legitimate market and the under-the-table market.
Didn’t we try that here after Brexit? From what I remember, farmers were having to let crops go to waste because Brits didn’t want the jobs, even after wages were raised. Most farm work is seasonal, people don’t really want that instability.
yeah, there’s a serious argument to be made here that the people in england, USA simply don’t want these kinds of jobs.
then again, the thing isn’t so simple. Why would people in the USA not want these jobs, but mexicans are fine with them? is it because the people are spoiled? is it for other reasons?
Personally, the job itself I wouldn’t mind, but it’s what comes with it. It’s seasonal work. How would I consistently support myself outside the season? How would I get a stable home if I’m living in farm accommodation while working?
In the UK at least, these were often men coming in from the EU. They could send money back home to their families, where it would go further.
A resident Brit with kids to support isn’t going to go for this kind of job. As I said, no stability. They’d have to pay enough to make up for months of no work over winter. Which they can’t do as their margins are already low and supermarkets don’t pay enough and so much produce goes to waste because it’s a bit blemished or wonky.
Sounds like they didn’t raise wages enough to fairly compensate workers for tolerating that instability.
Tbh, I’m not convinced that this would really happen. There’s not that much price elasticity to a lot of agricultural products. If the strawberries cost too much, most people will just not be able to afford strawberries and thus will just not buy them but instead buy less labour-intensive produce instead.
One could argue that if strawberries cannot be produced in a way that earns everyone involved a living wage then we shouldn’t produce strawberries, and that’s a totally valid point to argue.
It’s also fair to argue that we need to cut out capitalism’s inherent inefficiency of having to feed the capitalists in the process who did contributed nothing in terms of labour. But on the one hand, this hasn’t worked out that great in the past and on the other hand this would require more of a change than to just kick out migrants.
What would be more likely to happen (since we’ve seen it happen during Covid already) is that the wages will go up, but the locals still won’t do the work, thus strawberries will rot on the fields, the shelves will be empty, the prices will go up, but not enough to cover the losses for the farmers and the farmers will plant something less labour-intense next season.
(Wages would have to go way, way up before people will voluntarily quit their job in an AC’d office to work on a field.)
We are contemplating compulsory service by all Americans. “Free Market” is not a factor here. Against that alternative, we can consider a wide variety of non-free options for influencing market behavior.
You describe workers exploiting themselves: being willing to “do it for less” than a living wage. Correcting minimum wage to be a living wage keeps their slave-like desperation from influencing the labor market.
Beyond that, directly subsidizing American ag laborers corrects the follow-on market effects of anti-famine subsidies on agriculture. Ag subsidies depress food prices and tank farm revenue, forcing farmers to exploit workers. Ag subsidies directly to ag laborers corrects that undue influence on the labor market.