4 ms·

> 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. T

> 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.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Right - starving to death is always an option, nothing is forcing them. Free market at work! The free market is not a welfare system, though it can contribute a great deal to welfare, by keeping consumer prices down. It can support a welfare system by being sufficiently productive to raise taxes to pay for stuff. Meanwhile, those countries that do not employ a free market are poor across the board. Wealth is only achieved through corruption. That poverty is then blamed on "foreign intervention". Well, fair enough, but if your system can't handle that foreign intervention, it's still inferior. > It's not 1980, that's a fallacy and has been for a long time. By and large, "farmers" are large corporations printing money. Just because they're larger today doesn't mean they are printing money. It's a highly competitive business. Of course a large farm can be a bit more profitable due to economics of scale, but there's always pressure from the bottom, because the threshold to market entry isn't that high. Just try to accept that nothing is wrong with business profits per se. Let's say farming businesses have a 12% profit margin[1]. That's the price you pay for them to take the risk of running the business, and to do so efficiently. The profit margin reflects the real price of that service, just like the price of labor. Absent of any monopolies, it's a fair price. You couldn't get it any cheaper by, say, making the government do it. To the contrary. [1] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/operating-profit-margin-benchmarks.html https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/operating-profit-m...

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.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Right - starving to death is always an option, nothing is forcing them. Free market at work! The free market is not a welfare system, though it can contribute a great deal to welfare, by keeping consumer prices down. It can support a welfare system by being sufficiently productive to raise taxes to pay for stuff. Meanwhile, those countries that do not employ a free market are poor across the board. Wealth is only achieved through corruption. That poverty is then blamed on "foreign intervention". Well, fair enough, but if your system can't handle that foreign intervention, it's still inferior. > It's not 1980, that's a fallacy and has been for a long time. By and large, "farmers" are large corporations printing money. Just because they're larger today doesn't mean they are printing money. It's a highly competitive business. Of course a large farm can be a bit more profitable due to economics of scale, but there's always pressure from the bottom, because the threshold to market entry isn't that high. Just try to accept that nothing is wrong with business profits per se. Let's say farming businesses have a 12% profit margin[1]. That's the price you pay for them to take the risk of running the business, and to do so efficiently. The profit margin reflects the real price of that service, just like the price of labor. Absent of any monopolies, it's a fair price. You couldn't get it any cheaper by, say, making the government do it. To the contrary. [1] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/operating-profit-margin-benchmarks.html https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/operating-profit-m...