3 ms·
In this case the expensive resource is labor, so following your analogy, they should grow crops that are less labor intensive. Makes sense but doesn't seem like
by seti0Cha 3y ago
In this case the expensive resource is labor, so following your analogy, they should grow crops that are less labor intensive. Makes sense but doesn't seem like there's a net gain for the laborers there.
- diffeomorphism 3y agoNo, the whole point of the article is that for the workers it is always 7 days no matter whether it is 35, 40 or 48 "hours", since external costs like child care stay fixed. So the expensive resource decidedly is not labor but time.
- seti0Cha 3y agoOk, I see your point. If the farmer were to grow a crop that didn't require such rapid harvesting, the workers would end up doing the same labor over a longer period of time which could allow them to have lower child care costs. On the other hand, it would then take them longer in terms of calendar days to get the same income, and all their other expenses are likely to stay the same. If they normally moved on to other jobs after the harvest, this would mean reduced overall income. Also, the difficulty of the job is factored into the pay they receive (the article specifically says their hourly wage is higher than normal farm labor), so they would likely be paid less for this less demanding crop. It still doesn't seem like much of a solution.