4 ms·

More farms are turning to automation amid labor shortages

32 points by rntn 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago
This is a good thing imho. If the choices are an underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy, or automation, automation is the path to success. Subsidies should be provided to help small and family farms with the cost. There is no shortage of labor, but a shortage of people willing to work at the wages on offer for the job (in the US). Without shortages, humans are treated as a surplus resource. Force the system to achieve an outcome more favorable to the human. Edit: @potato3732842 and @vivekd Strongly agree with both of your comments.
- vivekd 2y ago
  >There is no shortage of labor, but a shortage of people willing to work at the wages on offer for the job. I wonder if this is a self fulfilling cycle. I mean if migrant labor and automation were unavailable would we close all the farms and starve to death because labour costs are too high? Or would we increase farm wages and pay the higher food prices if that's the outcome. It seems to me that the low wages on offer for farm work are a result of so many farms utilizing migrant labour and driving down wages in that sector. And if that option was unavailable we would probably have higher wages in the sector and more people developing expertise in farm work. It would likely also solve the problem of struggling rural economies.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    We would import a lot more of our food from countries with cheaper wages, unless the government said, no, you have to pay Americans to farm your food - then we'd be spending ~10% of GDP on food instead of ~5%, and still be getting lower quality food (since you can't grow many things in the US, or if you can it's ridiculously cost prohibitive and still will be low quality). Additionally, we'd be pinching the labor market further in whatever areas those people left to work on farms instead. It's not like we have 18% unemployment.
    - giantrobot 2y ago
      > (since you can't grow many things in the US, or if you can it's ridiculously cost prohibitive and still will be low quality) That's certainly a statement. It's ludicrous but it technically counts as a statement.
    - dangus 2y ago
      > since you can't grow many things in the US That is a rather strange claim. The US is represented all up and down this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_coun...
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Sure, if you ignore the context of the claim, it doesn't make sense. The context is a US without cheap farm labor. Most of that list depends on cheap labor. Corn & wheat depend on massive machines run by skilled labor, but most of the rest depend on cheap labor.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        US Ag needs to figure out how to go from low productivity to high productivity regardless. The world is rapidly aging, the total fertility rate is declining globally (Mexico's fertility rate is below that of the US', for example, and even they are running out of farm hands), and it is unlikely we outsource production of the necessary produce to India and Africa (the youthful, developing parts of the world that remain). Certainly, farmers will complain they no longer get a cheap labor discount, this is a common refrain in any industry where their labor costs are no longer discounted due to structural demographics. The desire to pay humans the least possible for their labor is universal. Automate or die, those are your choices. If there is a need for subsidies, cost of capital assistance, whatever, we can do that; capital is a fiction, labor is real. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/trends-driving-automation-on-the-farm https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/23/mexico-farmworkers-us-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/23/mexico-farmw... | https://archive.today/8rmWI https://archive.today/8rmWI
  - hiddencost 2y ago
    If you want to see the rest of this , take a look at what's happening in Russia now. They've sacrificed a ton of their low skilled labor, and cut off a lot of their migrant labor supply because of the terrorist attacks. Wages are increasing, but the country is just about maxed in in productivity and looks to be at serious risk of collapsing. Also, they're in serious trouble because even before the war they were not reproducing fast enough to replenish the labor supply, and immigration was supposed to account for that. And, in general, the answer to your question is that more immigrant labor actually creates more and higher value jobs than are replaced by immigrant labor. Not just the services they need and want in exchange, but also the comparative advantage of non immigrant labor being able to focus on more valuable tasks.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Before agricultural mechanisation, people used to spend 40% or more of their income on food. (the farm workers weren't really any better off then; they mostly got paid in lodging and farm produce instead of in cash)
    - vivekd 2y ago
      We have to account for other improvements like better fertilizers, pesticides and the green revolution which would lower food prices independent of automation and migrant labour.
    - Qwertious 2y ago
      Also, the amount we spend on food isn't a 1:1 comparison because compared to the 1920s etc we buy much more 'processed food' (e.g. pre-peeled potatoes), which saves labor in the kitchen but is more expensive.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The thing I like about automation and machines is that they are relatively free of emotional baggage. The removal of such emotional baggage from a subject greatly nerfs the ability of people to manipulate public perceptions by tugging at heartstrings with phrases like "underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy". With the human element removed it's much easier to have sane discussions yielding sane results.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - skhunted 2y ago
    The removal of such emotional baggage from a subject greatly nerfs the ability of people to manipulate public perceptions by tugging at heartstrings with phrases like "underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy". Do you believe migrant labor in the U.S. are treated with dignity and are treated well? What about illegal immigrants working in slaughterhouses? More generally speaking, do you believe there are classes of people who are treated poorly? If such people exist then isn’t it valid to describe them accurately and to describe how “the system” treats them?
  - computerthings 2y ago
    With the human element removed, who would be left to even have a discussion?
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      >With the human element removed, who would be left to even have a discussion? That's exactly the point. Only people with a fairly direct interest in the industry and its inputs and outputs would discuss it. Look at how HN discusses political matters. Look at how HN discusses computer industry matters. Every industry that can be converted from "everybody weighs in because it's sort of a social issue" to "mostly only people with a horse in the race weigh in" is a huge plus for humanity.
      - 2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That doesn't mean a surplus of humans doesn't exist, and won't be treated as one. IMO, it may make it worse if the narrative switches from migrant workers are needed to do the hard jobs to migrant workers won't do the hard jobs. The ideal of Hard working laborers is a lot more attractive than the concept of welfare queens, ect.
- freilanzer 2y ago
  It is in deed a good thing if it is taxed appropriately and goes toward a universal basic income for those who are replaced. Otherwise, it will result in a catastrophe.
- SapporoChris 2y ago
  "If the choices are an underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy, or automation, automation is the path to success." I'm not so sure about this argument. Migrant workers come into a country for a reason. Removing this opportunity does harm to the migrant worker. Any migrant worker human rights issues do need to be addressed, however I'm not convinced it is a good reason for automation.
  - mcharawi 2y ago
    I'm also skeptical of people talking on behalf of others in situations like this. I'd like to hear what the migrant workers think
    - SapporoChris 2y ago
      I appreciate your appeal for further information from people not likely to participate in this forum. Do you yourself have any additional information or argument that would be of interest?
  - vivekd 2y ago
    I mean if my boss lays me off I lose a good opportunity. I'm not sure if that means I have a human right to lifetime employment at my company. I'm Canadian, moving to America would open many doors for me and put me in a better economic position and give me more well defined constitutional rights. Does this mean I have a right to migrate to America. I understand people in desperate circumstances like refugees should be given special consideration. But expanding that to all migrant labour seems to be a strained definition of human rights
- account42 2y ago
  Increased automation without corresponding societal change only means you transfer even more wealth to the ownership class.
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  In the Netherlands there is a funny situation in which the farmers don't want to live next to the immigrants that they need. Slavery was a terrible thing but at least there was the deal that the masters had to house, clothe and feed their slaves. The government wasn't gonna do it for you. In modern capitalism everyone wants to escape their responsibilities.
jmyeet 2y ago
Daily reminder of 3 things: 1. There is never a "labor shortage". There is only "insufficient wages"; 2. In the US in particular, the agricultural sector would collapse without undocumented migrants; 3. Companies love migrants being undocumented because it suppresses wages for both documented and undocumented workers. We used to have extensive programs for temporary workers (eg the Bracero program [1]). Automation is going to be a huge issue in the coming years and there are two ways it could go. The first way is the capitalist way. That is that workers will be laiid off. Unemployment will be used to suppress wages further. Why? So the capitalists can eke out a few extra dollars in profit. This is the dystopian view and the one I consider most likely. The second way is tha automation makes work easier and take less time. This is essentially the socialist way. This could vastly improve everyone's lives. After all, making it so people don't actually have to work dangerous or just horrible agriculture jobs (or in an Amazon warehouse for that matter). I consider this, given the current political climate, to be highly unlikely. Our society is rapidly marching towards a future when nobody owns anything (particularly housing). You'll live at the whims of whoever provides worker housing. You'll largely work in service jobs that haven't been automated (yet) at low wages. Things like aged care and maintaining those estates you don't own but are granted housing on. Welcome to neofeudalism. [1]: https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  All migrant agricultural workers are documented. They have to come through a H-2A visa program. This visa runs background and criminal checks on the applicants before they're approved.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    From [1]: > The agricultural sector in the United States relies on foreign workers; 86 percent of agricultural workers [3] in the United States are foreign-born and 45 percent of all US agricultural workers are undocumented. This is particularly rife in the meatpacking and agricultural industries. The employers themselves call in ICE raids when their workers start demanding fair wages with little to no consequence. [1]: https://cmsny.org/agricultural-workers-rosenbloom-083022/ https://cmsny.org/agricultural-workers-rosenbloom-083022/
codingwagie 2y ago
"Labor shortage", except real wages in the usa have been declining since the 1970s. People need to be shamed for using these terms. Inflation adjusted, and even worse, real estate adjusted, wages have dropped like a rock.
- andrewmutz 2y ago
  Are you sure? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
  - Scoundreller 2y ago
    Half of households are below the median. That’s where you’re going to find your farm workers.
    - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
      "Real wages for hired U.S. farmworkers rose between 1990 and 2019" https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=99884 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
  - codingwagie 2y ago
    This the same FED that printed so much money during covid that housing prices doubled? Where is that reflected in this chart?
    - andrewmutz 2y ago
      The increased costs of living are reflected in the difference between that chart (which is adjusted for inflation) and the following chart, which is in dollars and not adjusted for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
  - iluvcommunism 2y ago
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tO7 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tO7 I’m not sure if this is the right graph, but I read somewhere, household size has been going down over time, so using household income is a bit misleading actually.
josefritzishere 2y ago
Automation is why every bag of spinach you buy today turns into green goo in three days and looks like it was punched in the face. I'd like to go back to human hands harvesting.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  The refrigerated shelf life of spinach is 10 days. How long do you think it takes to ship spinach from wherever it grows to every grocery store in the US? Not overnight. How long do think it sits on shelves before it sells? Not <1 day on average. This has much less to do with automation and more to do with spinach being available almost everywhere in the US at almost all times of the year. It is a modern miracle that you can buy fresh spinach in the dead of winter in North Dakota. Do you remember hearing stories of your grandma doing the same?

32 points by rntn 2y ago

This is a good thing imho. If the choices are an underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy, or automation, automation is the path to success. Subsidies should be provided to help small and family farms with the cost. There is no shortage of labor, but a shortage of people willing to work at the wages on offer for the job (in the US). Without shortages, humans are treated as a surplus resource. Force the system to achieve an outcome more favorable to the human. Edit: @potato3732842 and @vivekd Strongly agree with both of your comments.

vivekd 2y ago
>There is no shortage of labor, but a shortage of people willing to work at the wages on offer for the job. I wonder if this is a self fulfilling cycle. I mean if migrant labor and automation were unavailable would we close all the farms and starve to death because labour costs are too high? Or would we increase farm wages and pay the higher food prices if that's the outcome. It seems to me that the low wages on offer for farm work are a result of so many farms utilizing migrant labour and driving down wages in that sector. And if that option was unavailable we would probably have higher wages in the sector and more people developing expertise in farm work. It would likely also solve the problem of struggling rural economies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  We would import a lot more of our food from countries with cheaper wages, unless the government said, no, you have to pay Americans to farm your food - then we'd be spending ~10% of GDP on food instead of ~5%, and still be getting lower quality food (since you can't grow many things in the US, or if you can it's ridiculously cost prohibitive and still will be low quality). Additionally, we'd be pinching the labor market further in whatever areas those people left to work on farms instead. It's not like we have 18% unemployment.
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    > (since you can't grow many things in the US, or if you can it's ridiculously cost prohibitive and still will be low quality) That's certainly a statement. It's ludicrous but it technically counts as a statement.
  - dangus 2y ago
    > since you can't grow many things in the US That is a rather strange claim. The US is represented all up and down this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_coun...
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Sure, if you ignore the context of the claim, it doesn't make sense. The context is a US without cheap farm labor. Most of that list depends on cheap labor. Corn & wheat depend on massive machines run by skilled labor, but most of the rest depend on cheap labor.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        US Ag needs to figure out how to go from low productivity to high productivity regardless. The world is rapidly aging, the total fertility rate is declining globally (Mexico's fertility rate is below that of the US', for example, and even they are running out of farm hands), and it is unlikely we outsource production of the necessary produce to India and Africa (the youthful, developing parts of the world that remain). Certainly, farmers will complain they no longer get a cheap labor discount, this is a common refrain in any industry where their labor costs are no longer discounted due to structural demographics. The desire to pay humans the least possible for their labor is universal. Automate or die, those are your choices. If there is a need for subsidies, cost of capital assistance, whatever, we can do that; capital is a fiction, labor is real. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/trends-driving-automation-on-the-farm https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/23/mexico-farmworkers-us-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/23/mexico-farmw... | https://archive.today/8rmWI https://archive.today/8rmWI
- hiddencost 2y ago
  If you want to see the rest of this , take a look at what's happening in Russia now. They've sacrificed a ton of their low skilled labor, and cut off a lot of their migrant labor supply because of the terrorist attacks. Wages are increasing, but the country is just about maxed in in productivity and looks to be at serious risk of collapsing. Also, they're in serious trouble because even before the war they were not reproducing fast enough to replenish the labor supply, and immigration was supposed to account for that. And, in general, the answer to your question is that more immigrant labor actually creates more and higher value jobs than are replaced by immigrant labor. Not just the services they need and want in exchange, but also the comparative advantage of non immigrant labor being able to focus on more valuable tasks.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Before agricultural mechanisation, people used to spend 40% or more of their income on food. (the farm workers weren't really any better off then; they mostly got paid in lodging and farm produce instead of in cash)
  - vivekd 2y ago
    We have to account for other improvements like better fertilizers, pesticides and the green revolution which would lower food prices independent of automation and migrant labour.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    Also, the amount we spend on food isn't a 1:1 comparison because compared to the 1920s etc we buy much more 'processed food' (e.g. pre-peeled potatoes), which saves labor in the kitchen but is more expensive.
potato3732842 2y ago
The thing I like about automation and machines is that they are relatively free of emotional baggage. The removal of such emotional baggage from a subject greatly nerfs the ability of people to manipulate public perceptions by tugging at heartstrings with phrases like "underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy". With the human element removed it's much easier to have sane discussions yielding sane results.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skhunted 2y ago
  The removal of such emotional baggage from a subject greatly nerfs the ability of people to manipulate public perceptions by tugging at heartstrings with phrases like "underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy". Do you believe migrant labor in the U.S. are treated with dignity and are treated well? What about illegal immigrants working in slaughterhouses? More generally speaking, do you believe there are classes of people who are treated poorly? If such people exist then isn’t it valid to describe them accurately and to describe how “the system” treats them?
- computerthings 2y ago
  With the human element removed, who would be left to even have a discussion?
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >With the human element removed, who would be left to even have a discussion? That's exactly the point. Only people with a fairly direct interest in the industry and its inputs and outputs would discuss it. Look at how HN discusses political matters. Look at how HN discusses computer industry matters. Every industry that can be converted from "everybody weighs in because it's sort of a social issue" to "mostly only people with a horse in the race weigh in" is a huge plus for humanity.
    - 2y ago
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That doesn't mean a surplus of humans doesn't exist, and won't be treated as one. IMO, it may make it worse if the narrative switches from migrant workers are needed to do the hard jobs to migrant workers won't do the hard jobs. The ideal of Hard working laborers is a lot more attractive than the concept of welfare queens, ect.
freilanzer 2y ago
It is in deed a good thing if it is taxed appropriately and goes toward a universal basic income for those who are replaced. Otherwise, it will result in a catastrophe.
SapporoChris 2y ago
"If the choices are an underclass of migrant labor whose human rights are always in jeopardy, or automation, automation is the path to success." I'm not so sure about this argument. Migrant workers come into a country for a reason. Removing this opportunity does harm to the migrant worker. Any migrant worker human rights issues do need to be addressed, however I'm not convinced it is a good reason for automation.
- mcharawi 2y ago
  I'm also skeptical of people talking on behalf of others in situations like this. I'd like to hear what the migrant workers think
  - SapporoChris 2y ago
    I appreciate your appeal for further information from people not likely to participate in this forum. Do you yourself have any additional information or argument that would be of interest?
- vivekd 2y ago
  I mean if my boss lays me off I lose a good opportunity. I'm not sure if that means I have a human right to lifetime employment at my company. I'm Canadian, moving to America would open many doors for me and put me in a better economic position and give me more well defined constitutional rights. Does this mean I have a right to migrate to America. I understand people in desperate circumstances like refugees should be given special consideration. But expanding that to all migrant labour seems to be a strained definition of human rights
account42 2y ago
Increased automation without corresponding societal change only means you transfer even more wealth to the ownership class.
Neonlicht 2y ago
In the Netherlands there is a funny situation in which the farmers don't want to live next to the immigrants that they need. Slavery was a terrible thing but at least there was the deal that the masters had to house, clothe and feed their slaves. The government wasn't gonna do it for you. In modern capitalism everyone wants to escape their responsibilities.

jmyeet 2y ago

Daily reminder of 3 things: 1. There is never a "labor shortage". There is only "insufficient wages"; 2. In the US in particular, the agricultural sector would collapse without undocumented migrants; 3. Companies love migrants being undocumented because it suppresses wages for both documented and undocumented workers. We used to have extensive programs for temporary workers (eg the Bracero program [1]). Automation is going to be a huge issue in the coming years and there are two ways it could go. The first way is the capitalist way. That is that workers will be laiid off. Unemployment will be used to suppress wages further. Why? So the capitalists can eke out a few extra dollars in profit. This is the dystopian view and the one I consider most likely. The second way is tha automation makes work easier and take less time. This is essentially the socialist way. This could vastly improve everyone's lives. After all, making it so people don't actually have to work dangerous or just horrible agriculture jobs (or in an Amazon warehouse for that matter). I consider this, given the current political climate, to be highly unlikely. Our society is rapidly marching towards a future when nobody owns anything (particularly housing). You'll live at the whims of whoever provides worker housing. You'll largely work in service jobs that haven't been automated (yet) at low wages. Things like aged care and maintaining those estates you don't own but are granted housing on. Welcome to neofeudalism. [1]: https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program

phyzix5761 2y ago
All migrant agricultural workers are documented. They have to come through a H-2A visa program. This visa runs background and criminal checks on the applicants before they're approved.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  From [1]: > The agricultural sector in the United States relies on foreign workers; 86 percent of agricultural workers [3] in the United States are foreign-born and 45 percent of all US agricultural workers are undocumented. This is particularly rife in the meatpacking and agricultural industries. The employers themselves call in ICE raids when their workers start demanding fair wages with little to no consequence. [1]: https://cmsny.org/agricultural-workers-rosenbloom-083022/ https://cmsny.org/agricultural-workers-rosenbloom-083022/

codingwagie 2y ago

"Labor shortage", except real wages in the usa have been declining since the 1970s. People need to be shamed for using these terms. Inflation adjusted, and even worse, real estate adjusted, wages have dropped like a rock.

andrewmutz 2y ago
Are you sure? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  Half of households are below the median. That’s where you’re going to find your farm workers.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    "Real wages for hired U.S. farmworkers rose between 1990 and 2019" https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=99884 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
- codingwagie 2y ago
  This the same FED that printed so much money during covid that housing prices doubled? Where is that reflected in this chart?
  - andrewmutz 2y ago
    The increased costs of living are reflected in the difference between that chart (which is adjusted for inflation) and the following chart, which is in dollars and not adjusted for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
- iluvcommunism 2y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tO7 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15tO7 I’m not sure if this is the right graph, but I read somewhere, household size has been going down over time, so using household income is a bit misleading actually.

josefritzishere 2y ago

Automation is why every bag of spinach you buy today turns into green goo in three days and looks like it was punched in the face. I'd like to go back to human hands harvesting.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
The refrigerated shelf life of spinach is 10 days. How long do you think it takes to ship spinach from wherever it grows to every grocery store in the US? Not overnight. How long do think it sits on shelves before it sells? Not <1 day on average. This has much less to do with automation and more to do with spinach being available almost everywhere in the US at almost all times of the year. It is a modern miracle that you can buy fresh spinach in the dead of winter in North Dakota. Do you remember hearing stories of your grandma doing the same?