7 ms·

You say "increase the cost of labor" like it's nothing. Fact is, industries like this couldn't be operated on the up and up in the US- people wouldn't buy the

You say "increase the cost of labor" like it's nothing. Fact is, industries like this couldn't be operated on the up and up in the US- people wouldn't buy the product at the price it'd need to be sold for. I'm not saying this to justify the current conditions, I'm just pointing out that it's this or an eradication of the industry. edit: an eradication I'm totally fine with.

grey-area 7y ago
What price do you think strawberries would be with better conditions? I think the market would support double the price, there would just be lower sales.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  With strawberries, you'd think that the retail market price is already pretty close to the price that yields maximum profits. However, the wholesale price may be far lower than that, because of oligopsony.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
If the industry can't survive by following the rules then the leaders of that industry who profited from illicit behaviors should go to prison for decades and their assets should be sold off to pay damages to the effected. The industry can correct itself or die off. If no one wants a product at a humane price then the industry should go extinct in a functioning society.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > The industry can correct itself or die off. If no one wants a product at a humane price then the industry should go extinct in a functioning society. Okay, but is there a functioning society? Is there some welfare system where these people could take refuge? I don't think so. These workers come all the way from some place where their situation wouldn't be any better, otherwise that's where they'd stay. Should the industry go extinct, they'd be strictly worse off.
  - tw04 7y ago
    That's exactly what the southern slave owners tried claiming as well... and some slaves chose to stay because they believed the alternative would be worse. It doesn't mean we should support inhumane treatment of other people so that a handful of "Farmers" can get rich.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > That's exactly what the southern slave owners tried claiming as well... and some slaves chose to stay because they believed the alternative would be worse. That's not my argument. Of course, if a slave owner has to give up on their "property", they're not gonna provide housing, food and equipment to their former slaves anymore. The price of labor kicks in. Perhaps that price is lower than keeping a slave, perhaps it is higher. There's some arguments as to why free workers are actually cheaper. In any case, that price is always in flux. You're not going to discover that price while maintaining slavery, because the slaves have no opportunity to name their price. That's why the slave owner's argument is invalid. By contrast, the workers at these farms do have the choice. Nothing forces them, besides their own economic situation. They have no claim to welfare, no other skill that would pay better. > It doesn't mean we should support inhumane treatment of other people so that a handful of "Farmers" can get rich. By and large, farmers don't get rich. They're under price pressure from the store chains that buy their produce. Those store chains don't get rich either, they're under price pressure from consumers. Margins are razor-thin. We can all stop buying strawberries and let those farms go bankrupt, everything will be strictly worse.
      - tw04 7y ago
        >Nothing forces them, besides their own economic situation. Right - starving to death is always an option, nothing is forcing them. Free market at work! >By and large, farmers don't get rich. They're under price pressure from the store chains that buy their produce. Those store chains don't get rich either, they're under price pressure from consumers. Margins are razor-thin. It's not 1980, that's a fallacy and has been for a long time. By and large, "farmers" are large corporations printing money. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family-farms-continue-to-dominate-us-agricultural-production/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family... >The shift has come at the expense of small farms. Small family and nonfamily farms accounted for 46 percent of production in 1991, but by 2015, that share had fallen under 25 percent.
- anoonmoose 7y ago
  Fine by me.
groby_b 7y ago
Then people shouldn't buy the produce. There's no universal law saying you're entitled to your strawberries. If this approach is unsustainable (and it would be), then there are a lot of other things that need to change. What doesn't need to happen is us shrugging our shoulders, saying "meh, farmworkers need to suffer, it's too expensive otherwise"
- anoonmoose 7y ago
  As said elsewhere- fine by me.
triceratops 7y ago
It's a fallacy to say "people wouldn't buy the product because it's too expensive" when the product is food. People kinda have to buy food, no matter what. If every food producer is subject to the same regulations, every food retailer's prices will go up. Countries tend to protect their agricultural industry from foreign competition fairly effectively, particularly for staples.
- anoonmoose 7y ago
  We ain't talking beer or bread, we're talking about fresh strawberries. Not exactly a staple.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    If every fresh strawberry producer is held to the same standards, people will either buy the strawberries at the new price or go without. The strawberry industry isn't going to be wiped out.

grey-area 7y ago

What price do you think strawberries would be with better conditions? I think the market would support double the price, there would just be lower sales.

gridlockd 7y ago
With strawberries, you'd think that the retail market price is already pretty close to the price that yields maximum profits. However, the wholesale price may be far lower than that, because of oligopsony.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago

If the industry can't survive by following the rules then the leaders of that industry who profited from illicit behaviors should go to prison for decades and their assets should be sold off to pay damages to the effected. The industry can correct itself or die off. If no one wants a product at a humane price then the industry should go extinct in a functioning society.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gridlockd 7y ago
> The industry can correct itself or die off. If no one wants a product at a humane price then the industry should go extinct in a functioning society. Okay, but is there a functioning society? Is there some welfare system where these people could take refuge? I don't think so. These workers come all the way from some place where their situation wouldn't be any better, otherwise that's where they'd stay. Should the industry go extinct, they'd be strictly worse off.
- tw04 7y ago
  That's exactly what the southern slave owners tried claiming as well... and some slaves chose to stay because they believed the alternative would be worse. It doesn't mean we should support inhumane treatment of other people so that a handful of "Farmers" can get rich.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > That's exactly what the southern slave owners tried claiming as well... and some slaves chose to stay because they believed the alternative would be worse. That's not my argument. Of course, if a slave owner has to give up on their "property", they're not gonna provide housing, food and equipment to their former slaves anymore. The price of labor kicks in. Perhaps that price is lower than keeping a slave, perhaps it is higher. There's some arguments as to why free workers are actually cheaper. In any case, that price is always in flux. You're not going to discover that price while maintaining slavery, because the slaves have no opportunity to name their price. That's why the slave owner's argument is invalid. By contrast, the workers at these farms do have the choice. Nothing forces them, besides their own economic situation. They have no claim to welfare, no other skill that would pay better. > It doesn't mean we should support inhumane treatment of other people so that a handful of "Farmers" can get rich. By and large, farmers don't get rich. They're under price pressure from the store chains that buy their produce. Those store chains don't get rich either, they're under price pressure from consumers. Margins are razor-thin. We can all stop buying strawberries and let those farms go bankrupt, everything will be strictly worse.
    - tw04 7y ago
      >Nothing forces them, besides their own economic situation. Right - starving to death is always an option, nothing is forcing them. Free market at work! >By and large, farmers don't get rich. They're under price pressure from the store chains that buy their produce. Those store chains don't get rich either, they're under price pressure from consumers. Margins are razor-thin. It's not 1980, that's a fallacy and has been for a long time. By and large, "farmers" are large corporations printing money. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family-farms-continue-to-dominate-us-agricultural-production/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family... >The shift has come at the expense of small farms. Small family and nonfamily farms accounted for 46 percent of production in 1991, but by 2015, that share had fallen under 25 percent.
anoonmoose 7y ago
Fine by me.

groby_b 7y ago

Then people shouldn't buy the produce. There's no universal law saying you're entitled to your strawberries. If this approach is unsustainable (and it would be), then there are a lot of other things that need to change. What doesn't need to happen is us shrugging our shoulders, saying "meh, farmworkers need to suffer, it's too expensive otherwise"

anoonmoose 7y ago
As said elsewhere- fine by me.

triceratops 7y ago

It's a fallacy to say "people wouldn't buy the product because it's too expensive" when the product is food. People kinda have to buy food, no matter what. If every food producer is subject to the same regulations, every food retailer's prices will go up. Countries tend to protect their agricultural industry from foreign competition fairly effectively, particularly for staples.

anoonmoose 7y ago
We ain't talking beer or bread, we're talking about fresh strawberries. Not exactly a staple.
- triceratops 7y ago
  If every fresh strawberry producer is held to the same standards, people will either buy the strawberries at the new price or go without. The strawberry industry isn't going to be wiped out.