4 ms·

It's not that simple with farming, unfortunately. Worker pay is necessarily based on individual productivity, which can only increase so much [0]. Margins are r

It's not that simple with farming, unfortunately. Worker pay is necessarily based on individual productivity, which can only increase so much [0]. Margins are razor thin for producers to begin with. The vast majority of profits are captured by the manufacturing and distribution. This is why the IRS taxes farm workers and farm employers differently from any other kind of commercial activity. http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/low-wages/ http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/low-wage... [0]

ptmcc 9y ago
Sounds like prices need to rise then in order to compensate labor enough to do the job in the first place. Or robots, I guess.
c2h5oh 9y ago
At least in theory, once the loss due to lack of sufficient number of workers exceeds the cost of raising the wages they should go up and at the cost of margins or increased prices. This should offer nobody a competitive advantage because every farm is likely facing the same issue. Sadly employers behave like raising wages was not even an option. I guess that's human nature - money going from you pocket is a more tangible expense/loss than money not going into your pocket due to lost profits/opportunity.
bcoates 9y ago
Why should farm work be immune to cost disease when nothing else is?
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Alternatively, why should you believe cost disease applies to other work when it doesn't apply to farm work?
- aphextron 9y ago
  >Why should farm work be immune to cost disease when nothing else is? This is the heart of the matter. Humans have to eat. It's fundamentally different than any other market.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    We don't actually have to eat large amounts of cheap produce though. (farm labor is overwhelmingly concentrated in harvesting produce)
- walshemj 9y ago
  Political lobbying and in the USA's case the way the agricultural sates have representation far in excess of their population when compared to the metro areas

ptmcc 9y ago

Sounds like prices need to rise then in order to compensate labor enough to do the job in the first place. Or robots, I guess.

c2h5oh 9y ago

At least in theory, once the loss due to lack of sufficient number of workers exceeds the cost of raising the wages they should go up and at the cost of margins or increased prices. This should offer nobody a competitive advantage because every farm is likely facing the same issue. Sadly employers behave like raising wages was not even an option. I guess that's human nature - money going from you pocket is a more tangible expense/loss than money not going into your pocket due to lost profits/opportunity.

bcoates 9y ago

Why should farm work be immune to cost disease when nothing else is?

thaumasiotes 9y ago
Alternatively, why should you believe cost disease applies to other work when it doesn't apply to farm work?
aphextron 9y ago
>Why should farm work be immune to cost disease when nothing else is? This is the heart of the matter. Humans have to eat. It's fundamentally different than any other market.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  We don't actually have to eat large amounts of cheap produce though. (farm labor is overwhelmingly concentrated in harvesting produce)
walshemj 9y ago
Political lobbying and in the USA's case the way the agricultural sates have representation far in excess of their population when compared to the metro areas