9 ms·
They could also, which is notably mentioned no where in the article, pay more? In a market driven economy...which companies want...employees have market power
by avs733 9y ago
They could also, which is notably mentioned no where in the article, pay more?
In a market driven economy...which companies want...employees have market power as well when their is a shortage.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoOr just import more from Mexico and have Californians concentrate on the higher value jobs.
- coredog64 9y agoThis would be the best thing. US farm subsidies mean that Mexican farmers can't compete with US farms. If we stopped stupidly subsidizing farming[0], the Mexican economy would be able to make use of more of their citizens. They'd get the tax revenue, and maybe there'd even be more incentive to clean up corruption. [0] Food security might be worth some subsidization, but not the level that the US currently has.
- otempomores 9y agoNobody wants a food free market. A seller advantage would still be starvation.
- HillaryBriss 9y agoFarmers in Mexico are most certainly competing effectively with US farms in some categories e.g. citrus, avocados and tomatoes. And automated farm technology will (continue to) cross borders. These machines won't remain only in the US. They will be used in Mexico too.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- andrewla 9y ago> They could also, which is notably mentioned no where in the article, pay more? From the article: > And native-born Americans aren’t interested in the job, even at wages that have soared at higher than average rates. > Not surprisingly, wages for crop production have climbed 13% from 2010 to 2015 — a higher rate than the state average, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of Labor Department data. > Growers who can afford it have begun offering savings and health plans more commonly found in white collar jobs. Margins are thin, though, and the article makes it sound like it is more efficient to grow less labor-intensive crops and import the other crops.
- xienze 9y ago> And native-born Americans aren’t interested in the job, even at wages that have soared at higher than average rates. Conspicuously absent in every single article claiming that Americans "aren't interested" in farm work is exactly what constitutes "higher than average rates". You _will_ find Americans interested in this work at some rate, but it's going to be higher than what you think it "should" be. In a country where a $15 minimum wage is expected for relatively comfy fast food work, back-breaking outdoor labor is going to be significantly more expensive. But you will find takers at some price.
- criddell 9y agoIn another comment on this thread, a farmer said he couldn't hire people at $25 / hour. If a machine can do it, then a machine should do it. Especially work that's difficult and can be dangerous - like farm work.
- rgbrenner 9y agoYes, but farm workers only work part of the year, and only work on each farm for a few weeks.. then move onto another farm. So having 1 farm paying $25/hr, does not change much for the worker.. after they finish at that farm, they'll need to go to another that's paying near minimum wage (the average for a farm worker).. and the result is that they are still in poverty (the average farm worker lives below the poverty line). The result is that no one is going to move from even a minimum wage job to farm work unless the pay is even higher and/or other farms get onboard with the higher wages.
- PeterisP 9y agoThe rising wages is notably mentioned in the article, and it is the implied reason for automation - the industry is not going to replace cheap workers with expensive workers, it's going to restructure everything (including the crop species it grows) to ensure that cheap workers are replaced with machines. If some industry is employing $10 million of labor and market wages go up 20%, the expected outcome is not spending $12m on labor, you should rather expect something like spending $9m on labor and $2m on machines that weren't worth it back when labor was cheap but are worth it now. Many industries, including this one, employ humans only because (and only while) they can do it cheaper than the machines. Yet. As the technology matures and becomes cheaper, and people want to earn more, the result is going to be simply less jobs.
- ihsw2 9y agoTell that to the plethora of hotels that are constantly hiring contractors to clean their hotels because their staff either quit due to lack of pay or being overworked due to lack of staff. The same for trucking companies that are haemorrhaging drivers. The same for the construction industry. Market efficiency implies the market is managed well. It's not half the time.
- shostack 9y agoFrom a hotel accounting standpoint I honestly wonder which is more profitable for what I'd assume can be classified as a low-skill job: 1. Hire more employees and/or pay higher wages or other benefits to retain experienced (and thus presumably more efficient and effective staff) 2. Churn and burn with abandon because there will always be people desperate enough for any job to keep themselves off the street, even if it's just until they can find something marginally better I'm not making any judgements on the morality of this...just raising the question since I have a guess that #2 is more profitable.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoI suspect that number 2 is less profitable: the quality of work drops, your reputation drops, and the effective market rate you can charge drops. But I think you can get trapped in a number 2 situation regardless -- eg, there's an economic downturn, so people spend less, the business "cost optimizes", which causes people to spend less, etc. I think the second case is a sort of "survival" mode witnessed in fundamentally unhealthy economies where businesses are being squeezed because people in general are being squeezed.
- mcone 9y agoThey could pay more. But since what we're really talking about here is the market, the real question is who would pick up the added costs. Are consumers willing to pay the "real cost" of food grown by employees who are paid a fair wage?
- sol_remmy 9y agoIt's already been shown in Seattle that raising minimum wage does not raise prices. Therefore paying these workers more should not raise prices. It might make them rise to middle class though :)
- masterleep 9y agoWonderful news! Just set the minimum wage to $100/hr, and we'll be in fat city!
- sol_remmy 9y agoThe Seattle experiment would have to be repeated for higher levels of minimum wage. I would suggest a basic income instead though, then people won't have to pick fruit to survive :)
- adventured 9y agoPaying the top 1/2 of earners a basic income is hyper regressive and inefficient (you have to turn around and tax it back from them). The current progressive income tax system paired with a higher income tax credit - instead of a counter productive higher minimum wage - is a vastly superior approach that has already been proven to work very well. BI is a fantasy at best. At worst, it'll wreck any economy that attempts it - which is also why none has or will. There's no scenario under which BI works out financially.
- lovich 9y agoWhy would you have to introduce inefficiencies like taxing the payment from the government, or if you did do that, how is it any different from just increasing the income reported for the year that you get from work already? As for it being hyper regressive, one of the benefits of BI is that you have no means testing at all and can save on all of the bureaucratic overhead. You can still keep a progressive income tax on top of the BI payments. I'd also like to see actual evidence that BI cant work out financially. You get X tax dollars out of your economy, you Pay out X/population to each person. How does that not work out?
- GirlsCanCode 9y agoThey mention raising wages and paying benefits several times in the article. @Dang--can you remove this user who doesn't read the articles and then makes inflammatory misinformed comments.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y agoAlthough I am in agreement with you, a rise in the cost of wages for this sector hastens more automation
- LoonyBalloony 9y agoSeems like society is doing everything it can to keep this trend going: http://i.imgur.com/Uc6kX8G.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Uc6kX8G.jpg
- mapmap 9y agoIs this correlated to the gold standard ending in the early seventies?
- droidist2 9y agoI would guess it's correlated to the rise of other manufacturing competitors like Japan, Taiwan, and later China. After World War II the US had an easier time as much of Asia and Europe's capacity was destroyed.
- rgbrenner 9y agowell you see... they pay near minimum wage for hard temporary labor that results in most of their workforce living below the poverty line. They've tried giving them a token wage increase, and it hasnt changed anything.. so clearly increasing wages doesnt work /s For some reason they say they can't figure out.. people aren't jumping at the chance to live in poverty. When they say they cant find people, and they're paying $7/hr or have increased it to $10/hr... it's a joke. They don't want to compete in the free market for labor.
- saint_fiasco 9y agoMaybe the robots cost the equivalent of paying a human $11/hr They will only try paying a person $12 an hour if the robots don't work.