5 ms·

> 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, e

> 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 ago
  In 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 ago
    Yes, 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.
    - criddell 9y ago
      Exactly right. This work needs to be entirely automated.
      - rfrank 9y ago
        Okay, what's your proposition for the displaced workers?
        criddell 9y ago
        Displaced workers? We're talking about how difficult it is to find people to do this work. Anyway, having people do work that could be automated feels like another version of the broken window fallacy.
        rfrank 9y ago
        > We're talking about how difficult it is to find people to do this work. * in California. So farmers don't matter, just like other workers who lose their jobs to automation. Got it, thanks for the help.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        criddell 9y ago
        > So farmers don't matter, just like other workers who lose their jobs to automation. Nobody said that and I can't believe you would think anybody actually sees the world like that. I would hope that we can find more meaningful ways for people to spend their days than doing things that can be better accomplished via machinery. Otherwise we really are just paying one group to break windows so another group can be paid to fix them and that's not good for anybody.
        rfrank 9y ago
        Automating people's jobs away without meaningful replacements is how regions get decimated, and you end up with very large swaths of very angry people without much to lose.
  - rfrank 9y ago
    Farm labor in other states earn $15-20 an hour [1], and will enjoy much higher purchasing power, and (almost certainly) a political climate they'll find less actively hostile than the one they'll find in California. Why would farm laborers want to come here? 1. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452099.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452099.htm
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    I'm certain people will do the work for $1 million per hour. Thus it seems a valid conclusion that $25/hr in California for this work is not the market rate.
    - criddell 9y ago
      The market rate has to include the cost of doing the job with machines. If a person will do it for $1 million per hour but I can get a machine to do it for $1 / hour, then the market rate is $1 / hour.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- thephyber 9y ago
  > But you will find takers at some price. At some point, the goods won't move unless they are inelastic goods (which individual foods aren't). There is no single food product which people can not live without.
lovich 9y ago
13% over 5 years isn't exactly what I'd call soaring. That barely beats out inflation over that same time frame.[1] Doing the quick math it looks like that beats inflation by <3% for hard labor in a job with no career potential. What are the wages as well? If they are in the $10-$20/hr range then those increases are fractions of a dollar per hour more for seasonal work. That is unlikely to convince anyone to go pick up that job if they weren't doing it already [1]http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states.aspx http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/histor...
avs733 9y ago
Fair enough...I missed that part somehow (I swear I actually read the article :) )

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 ago
In 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 ago
  Yes, 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.
  - criddell 9y ago
    Exactly right. This work needs to be entirely automated.
    - rfrank 9y ago
      Okay, what's your proposition for the displaced workers?
      - criddell 9y ago
        Displaced workers? We're talking about how difficult it is to find people to do this work. Anyway, having people do work that could be automated feels like another version of the broken window fallacy.
        rfrank 9y ago
        > We're talking about how difficult it is to find people to do this work. * in California. So farmers don't matter, just like other workers who lose their jobs to automation. Got it, thanks for the help.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        criddell 9y ago
        > So farmers don't matter, just like other workers who lose their jobs to automation. Nobody said that and I can't believe you would think anybody actually sees the world like that. I would hope that we can find more meaningful ways for people to spend their days than doing things that can be better accomplished via machinery. Otherwise we really are just paying one group to break windows so another group can be paid to fix them and that's not good for anybody.
        rfrank 9y ago
        Automating people's jobs away without meaningful replacements is how regions get decimated, and you end up with very large swaths of very angry people without much to lose.
- rfrank 9y ago
  Farm labor in other states earn $15-20 an hour [1], and will enjoy much higher purchasing power, and (almost certainly) a political climate they'll find less actively hostile than the one they'll find in California. Why would farm laborers want to come here? 1. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452099.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452099.htm
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- yequalsx 9y ago
  I'm certain people will do the work for $1 million per hour. Thus it seems a valid conclusion that $25/hr in California for this work is not the market rate.
  - criddell 9y ago
    The market rate has to include the cost of doing the job with machines. If a person will do it for $1 million per hour but I can get a machine to do it for $1 / hour, then the market rate is $1 / hour.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
thephyber 9y ago
> But you will find takers at some price. At some point, the goods won't move unless they are inelastic goods (which individual foods aren't). There is no single food product which people can not live without.

lovich 9y ago

13% over 5 years isn't exactly what I'd call soaring. That barely beats out inflation over that same time frame.[1] Doing the quick math it looks like that beats inflation by <3% for hard labor in a job with no career potential. What are the wages as well? If they are in the $10-$20/hr range then those increases are fractions of a dollar per hour more for seasonal work. That is unlikely to convince anyone to go pick up that job if they weren't doing it already [1]http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states.aspx http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/histor...

avs733 9y ago

Fair enough...I missed that part somehow (I swear I actually read the article :) )