3 ms·

A shit ton. I worked up in the Alaskan fishing industry for a short period. About half the people there were white citizens. It is much worse than the field.

A shit ton. I worked up in the Alaskan fishing industry for a short period. About half the people there were white citizens. It is much worse than the field. You are stuck in a ship, in the Bering Sea (one of the most dangerous and nastiest coastal areas in the US), working 16+ hours a day under the worst conditions imaginable. Imagine being deathly sea sick while holding a knife in your hand, rocking violently from side to side. You're literally trapped, stuck with horrible smell of fish, horribly ill and worked to the bone with no escape and the boss will probably kick your ass if you bail while out at sea. The upside of that 36/hr is many people were able to either take much of the year off or provide lavishly for their families when otherwise their children would have much fewer opportunities. It's not even a question whether many would take it, it's a certainty.

scarface74 5y ago
So how many farmers could afford to pay enough to field laborers to provide “lavishly” for their family and still be competitive in the global market? And the fishing industry is highly subsidized https://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/subsidies_rsr_final.pdf https://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/sub...
- notch656a 5y ago
  $36/hr was your example, not mine. You gave the example and apparently now you are debating yourself. If your point is the industry (fishing) is subsidized, well farming also is highly subsidized.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Yes farming is heavily subsidized and they still don’t have high margins. How will they afford to pay enough to compete with much easier year round warehouse jobs with benefits that are much easier. It’s not like people in Alaska have too many choices and the relatively few fisherman pales in comparison to the number of farm workers needed. Besides, Americans are already whining about inflation. Guess what would happen if food labor costs went up 5x?
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Well my solution is more or less as follows 1) Eliminate subsidies to agriculture (and fishing) gradually over say a decade. Effect: higher food prices 2) Phase out any tariffs or regulation on import of agriculture/fishing over say a decade. Effect: lower food prices 3) All workers should be on equal playing field. What regulation applies to one should apply to another. Let the free market determine rates within these regulatory constraints. Taking special advantage of undocumented immigrants to avoid labor regulations isn't an acceptable option. Regulations and law should apply equally to everyone, if it is to be applied at all. Wages will rise until either the free market rate for this kind of labor is matched, or the farm in question becomes unprofitable. In the latter case, the farm is not compatible with efficient use of human resources and should adapt or fail. In the former case, workers benefit in the form of rising wages. When there are subsidies, Americans pay one way or another. You can pay either in the form of increased government revenues (i.e. taxation/inflation/debt) or you can pay at the grocery store. I'm much more in favor of the latter as we don't need to add yet another middleman eating up resources in this equation. Costs should be born directly by those consuming the resource.
      - scarface74 5y ago
        And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? American farmers are then less competitive here and abroad. Yes I know, there are no easy answers.
        notch656a 5y ago
        >And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world. Not ideal for the world, but great for those getting the cheap food. Labor directed in agriculture instead get focused into other industries we have a competitive advantage in.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Any industry has a competitive advantage internationally when your government is subsidizing it going out and imposing tariffs coming in. As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.

scarface74 5y ago

So how many farmers could afford to pay enough to field laborers to provide “lavishly” for their family and still be competitive in the global market? And the fishing industry is highly subsidized https://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/subsidies_rsr_final.pdf https://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/sub...

notch656a 5y ago
$36/hr was your example, not mine. You gave the example and apparently now you are debating yourself. If your point is the industry (fishing) is subsidized, well farming also is highly subsidized.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Yes farming is heavily subsidized and they still don’t have high margins. How will they afford to pay enough to compete with much easier year round warehouse jobs with benefits that are much easier. It’s not like people in Alaska have too many choices and the relatively few fisherman pales in comparison to the number of farm workers needed. Besides, Americans are already whining about inflation. Guess what would happen if food labor costs went up 5x?
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Well my solution is more or less as follows 1) Eliminate subsidies to agriculture (and fishing) gradually over say a decade. Effect: higher food prices 2) Phase out any tariffs or regulation on import of agriculture/fishing over say a decade. Effect: lower food prices 3) All workers should be on equal playing field. What regulation applies to one should apply to another. Let the free market determine rates within these regulatory constraints. Taking special advantage of undocumented immigrants to avoid labor regulations isn't an acceptable option. Regulations and law should apply equally to everyone, if it is to be applied at all. Wages will rise until either the free market rate for this kind of labor is matched, or the farm in question becomes unprofitable. In the latter case, the farm is not compatible with efficient use of human resources and should adapt or fail. In the former case, workers benefit in the form of rising wages. When there are subsidies, Americans pay one way or another. You can pay either in the form of increased government revenues (i.e. taxation/inflation/debt) or you can pay at the grocery store. I'm much more in favor of the latter as we don't need to add yet another middleman eating up resources in this equation. Costs should be born directly by those consuming the resource.
    - scarface74 5y ago
      And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? American farmers are then less competitive here and abroad. Yes I know, there are no easy answers.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        >And what happens when the US phases out subsidies and other countries don’t? Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world. Not ideal for the world, but great for those getting the cheap food. Labor directed in agriculture instead get focused into other industries we have a competitive advantage in.
        scarface74 5y ago
        Any industry has a competitive advantage internationally when your government is subsidizing it going out and imposing tariffs coming in. As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it. Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.