3 ms·

> There's no easy solutions Capitalism has an easy solution. Labour shortage = raise wages.

by Mikeb85 10y ago

guitarbill 10y ago
Sorry, I edited the parent comment for brevity and changed it a bit. But my question is still who would pay for those wage raises? The people who buy the products? How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? Would they say "yeah, that seems fair" or "fuck it, let's allow immigration"? Do they even earn enough money themselves to have the liberty to make that decision, if food was a lot more expensive?
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  > But my question is still who would pay for those wage raises? The people who buy the products? Yes, exactly. > How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? If you weren't artificially suppressing wages through illegal immigration, the working class would have more money, the labour market would be at a better equilibrium and everyone would have money to buy food even at the slightly higher prices. Who knows, maybe landowning farmers would even find some way to produce more efficiently, with a little incentive.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Slightly higher prices? Care to add some support to that, even if just your imagination and assumptions? My guess is more like "$20 lettuce," at the very least.
    - Mikeb85 10y ago
      Well, the unemployment rate isn't zero. It's hard to say exactly how elastic the labour market is, but my guess is labour costs wouldn't actually double. They'd probably go up by 20-50%, worst case. If the market can't take a 50% price increase, the farmers will either sell for less margin and accept a cut in profits, or they'll find efficiency through automation. But as I pointed out, nothing happens in a vacuum. Rising 'cost' of labour means rising wages, consumers have more money. What's the better equilibrium? Keep in mind, in most parts of the world, we pay much, much more for food than Americans. Somehow we survive, and live pretty damn well too. Edit - I should also add, I buy organic lettuce produced in a greenhouse in Canada. It doesn't cost $20. We're somewhat less tolerant of illegal labour than the US as well.
    - pfranz 10y ago
      I think, much like when the ACA was implemented in the US, there's no real way to quantify beforehand how significant the changes will be (that's not saying we should do it and wait for the fallout). Yes, lettuce might go up to $20 a head--we'll eat less lettuce and it's no longer assumed to come free on burgers and people move to something else. We can offset that by offering farmer's more subsidies, importing more lettuce from somewhere else, or incentivize loans for better farm equipment/irrigation. We'd need to decide to stop exploiting workers and work on finding solutions from there (I don't actually see that first part happening).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- Inconel 10y ago
  >How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? I don't mean to sound cheeky, and you make some good points, but perhaps US consumers would react to higher prices by not throwing away huge portions of produce. I've seen figures that the US throws away ~50% of our produce.
JackFr 10y ago
> Capitalism has an easy solution. Labour shortage = raise wages. Which will move the price of the agricultural products to uncompetitive levels, and the agricultural production will move to Mexico. So to the extent that it turns out the determinative input in the cost of fruits and vegetables is labor, the wages can flow to Mexican workers in Mexico or Mexican workers in the United States, and similarly profits can flow to the owners of land and capital in the United States or those in Mexico.
- bsder 10y ago
  > Which will move the price of the agricultural products to uncompetitive levels, and the agricultural production will move to Mexico. And what is wrong with this? Corporations always magically get very snippy when capitalism works against them. In addition, California needs to shut down a lot of farming in the Central Valley due to the water shortage. We should not be growing crops in that area when we have to spend so much to actually irrigate it.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    A lot of that farming in California provides the vast majority of national or even global supplies of various fruits and vegetables. California's Central Valley has a long growing season and very fertile soil, the combination of which make it about as ideal for growing crops as one can get (with the sole exception of water). Agriculture's here to stay; it's just a question of how much water it'll get. Water usage can be reduced through smarter irrigation methods, and we have a ridiculously-long coastline that could be put to good use by building some desalinization plants (solving not only our own water crisis, but also the relative aridity of Nevada and Arizona). Even importing water from elsewhere is far more reasonable than shutting down California's agriculture. That said, beef does take up a disproportionate amount of water statewide, and really ought to be moved out-of-state (and I say this as someone whose extended family has a vested interest in Californian cattle ranching). Alfalfa might benefit from California's soil and sunshine, but the cows themselves don't exactly need to be here.
- Mikeb85 10y ago

> There's no easy solutions Capitalism has an easy solution. Labour shortage = raise wages.

by Mikeb85 10y ago

> There's no easy solutions Capitalism has an easy solution. Labour shortage = raise wages.

Sorry, I edited the parent comment for brevity and changed it a bit. But my question is still who would pay for those wage raises? The people who buy the products? How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? Would they say "yeah, that seems fair" or "fuck it, let's allow immigration"? Do they even earn enough money themselves to have the liberty to make that decision, if food was a lot more expensive?

Mikeb85 10y ago
> But my question is still who would pay for those wage raises? The people who buy the products? Yes, exactly. > How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? If you weren't artificially suppressing wages through illegal immigration, the working class would have more money, the labour market would be at a better equilibrium and everyone would have money to buy food even at the slightly higher prices. Who knows, maybe landowning farmers would even find some way to produce more efficiently, with a little incentive.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Slightly higher prices? Care to add some support to that, even if just your imagination and assumptions? My guess is more like "$20 lettuce," at the very least.
  - Mikeb85 10y ago
    Well, the unemployment rate isn't zero. It's hard to say exactly how elastic the labour market is, but my guess is labour costs wouldn't actually double. They'd probably go up by 20-50%, worst case. If the market can't take a 50% price increase, the farmers will either sell for less margin and accept a cut in profits, or they'll find efficiency through automation. But as I pointed out, nothing happens in a vacuum. Rising 'cost' of labour means rising wages, consumers have more money. What's the better equilibrium? Keep in mind, in most parts of the world, we pay much, much more for food than Americans. Somehow we survive, and live pretty damn well too. Edit - I should also add, I buy organic lettuce produced in a greenhouse in Canada. It doesn't cost $20. We're somewhat less tolerant of illegal labour than the US as well.
  - pfranz 10y ago
    I think, much like when the ACA was implemented in the US, there's no real way to quantify beforehand how significant the changes will be (that's not saying we should do it and wait for the fallout). Yes, lettuce might go up to $20 a head--we'll eat less lettuce and it's no longer assumed to come free on burgers and people move to something else. We can offset that by offering farmer's more subsidies, importing more lettuce from somewhere else, or incentivize loans for better farm equipment/irrigation. We'd need to decide to stop exploiting workers and work on finding solutions from there (I don't actually see that first part happening).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Inconel 10y ago
>How do you think they'd react if fruit/vegetables were twice the price overnight? I don't mean to sound cheeky, and you make some good points, but perhaps US consumers would react to higher prices by not throwing away huge portions of produce. I've seen figures that the US throws away ~50% of our produce.

JackFr 10y ago

> Capitalism has an easy solution. Labour shortage = raise wages. Which will move the price of the agricultural products to uncompetitive levels, and the agricultural production will move to Mexico. So to the extent that it turns out the determinative input in the cost of fruits and vegetables is labor, the wages can flow to Mexican workers in Mexico or Mexican workers in the United States, and similarly profits can flow to the owners of land and capital in the United States or those in Mexico.

bsder 10y ago
> Which will move the price of the agricultural products to uncompetitive levels, and the agricultural production will move to Mexico. And what is wrong with this? Corporations always magically get very snippy when capitalism works against them. In addition, California needs to shut down a lot of farming in the Central Valley due to the water shortage. We should not be growing crops in that area when we have to spend so much to actually irrigate it.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  A lot of that farming in California provides the vast majority of national or even global supplies of various fruits and vegetables. California's Central Valley has a long growing season and very fertile soil, the combination of which make it about as ideal for growing crops as one can get (with the sole exception of water). Agriculture's here to stay; it's just a question of how much water it'll get. Water usage can be reduced through smarter irrigation methods, and we have a ridiculously-long coastline that could be put to good use by building some desalinization plants (solving not only our own water crisis, but also the relative aridity of Nevada and Arizona). Even importing water from elsewhere is far more reasonable than shutting down California's agriculture. That said, beef does take up a disproportionate amount of water statewide, and really ought to be moved out-of-state (and I say this as someone whose extended family has a vested interest in Californian cattle ranching). Alfalfa might benefit from California's soil and sunshine, but the cows themselves don't exactly need to be here.
Mikeb85 10y ago