5 ms·
> "In the fields, I would say 70% of the workers are gone," she said in an interview. "If 70% of your workforce doesn't show up, 70% of your crop doesn't get pi
by acjohnson55 1y ago
> "In the fields, I would say 70% of the workers are gone," she said in an interview. "If 70% of your workforce doesn't show up, 70% of your crop doesn't get picked and can go bad in one day. Most Americans don't want to do this work. Most farmers here are barely breaking even. I fear this has created a tipping point where many will go bust."
Presumably, there will be bigger pocketed entities waiting in the wings to snap up some distressed assets.
- appleaday1 1y agodo they have a source on many americans dont want to do this type of work part?
- readthenotes1 1y agoThere's a funny video associated with this campaign from 2010 https://ufw.org/allvoices-colbert-says-always-wanted-a-farm-worker-job-now-s-your-chance/ https://ufw.org/allvoices-colbert-says-always-wanted-a-farm-...
- kersplody 1y agoLook at UC Davis Gifford Center’s April 2024 “Farm Labor Issues in the 2020s” summary report: https://gifford.ucdavis.edu/events/past/april-4-2024-farm-labor-issues-in-the-2020s/farm-labor-issues-in-the-2020s-summary-report/ https://gifford.ucdavis.edu/events/past/april-4-2024-farm-la... Very few U.S.-born workers respond to job ads for seasonal crop work, Show up when work begins, or Stick around through the harvest season. "Even when wages reach—or exceed $20–$30 per hour, seasonal U.S. workers overwhelmingly opt out of field labor. That persistent gap is why American agriculture depends so heavily on immigrant and guest‐worker programs, and why mechanization continues to accelerate."
- aksjsnxkkxx 1y agoThe simple counter is to offer higher wages. We absolutely have the capital and tech to ensure people can make a decent living doing farm labor. It would require less billionaires and less chatgpt wrappers with billion dollar valuations.
- msgodel 1y agoThis. Labor markets cut both ways but you have to actually follow the rules for it to work.
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y agoWait till you find out how much legal workers who make clothes in America make.
- msgodel 1y agoGo move to South America if you think their workers have something we don't and will make your life so much better.
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y agoThat’s a silly response. Why do you think workers are exploited? You say we need to play by the roles, but you’re going to balk at the cost of playing by those rules.
- msgodel 1y agoWe have absolutely decided we're fine with it. We'd prefer a functioning domestic economy to cheap luxuries.
- acjohnson55 1y agoI found the most Planet Money episode on this eye-opening: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/1255526971/garment-workers-clothing-made-in-usa https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/1255526971/garment-workers-cl...
- dv_dt 1y agoWe have the capital and tech to ensure out entire population has living wages, and yet and increasing swath of them do not
- 1y ago
- sys32768 1y agoNote that the same report says legal, temporary "H-2A workers are more productive and provide labor insurance for producers of perishable commodities, but cost $5 to $10 an hour more than settled farm workers because of recruitment, transportation, and housing costs."
- zdragnar 1y agoWhat American would want to do the work when you're competing with people who aren't subject to labor laws like minimum wage, break times and so forth?
- aksjsnxkkxx 1y agoAnd when people ask where is the money going to come from it’s very easy to point out the ever growing wealth gap and immoral levels of wealth our billionaire class has. But that never happens, and this meaningless left / right dichotomy continues to distract the population. A few less iPhones and a few more automated farms. Billionaires would be hardest hit unfortunately.
- beej71 1y agoBut Americans are subject to labor laws and minimum wage and break times and so forth, so how is this a factor in whether or not they want to do the work? You'll get paid minimum wage and have breaks.
- zdragnar 1y agoThe implication is that undocumented laborers, or those who fear immigration enforcement, will not report illegal working conditions or wage theft. It is further implied that plenty of Americans would do the job with adequate pay and working conditions.
- saalweachter 1y agoI assume there are indeed some buyers who will indeed snap up the assets, but I do wonder "and then what?" They trust that their bigger political clout will let them continue to employee undocumented migrant workers at wages no one else will work for? They wait for the political climate to change, and then they'll go back to business as usual? They wait for produce prices to skyrocket/the job market to crater, and then pay minimum wage for the jobs? Something something, AI/robots?
- paxys 1y ago> They trust that their bigger political clout will let them continue to employee undocumented migrant workers at wages no one else will work for? Yes, this is exactly what will happen.
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y agoI don’t think this is clear. They might just mechanise why have jobs when a machine can do the job just as well?
- Arnt 1y agoThis assumes that a machine can do the job, but the present owners don't understand it. The article doesn't say "this will force farmers to mechanise more", see?
- paxys 1y agoIf a machine could have done the job it would be doing it right now.
- Gud 1y agoNot if using illegal workers is cheaper.
- pseudo0 1y agoIllegal migration makes it infeasible to invest in technology to automate the work, because any business that wants to invest in automation will be undercut by a less ethical competitor employing illegal, artificially cheap workers. This also makes it hard to attract investment for companies building technology to automate this work, because investors assume that the government will continue to not enforce the law, leading to reduced demand for labor-replacing technology. We won't get significant innovation and investment in this field until the government sends a clear message that they will be consistently enforcing the law going forward.
- e40 1y agoDo you have proof of this, because I seriously doubt it is true. The idea there are unused assets waiting in the wings is just absurd.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoOh, it's parked somewhere - Treasury bonds, the stock market, or something. It's still liquid enough to buy a deeply discounted asset when you see one, though.
- sebastiennight 1y agoWait. Do you believe that right now, there are no large entities around with vast amounts of funds that they are looking to invest? None?
- e40 1y agoI don't doubt that funds are available. The idea that a perishable commodity can be harvested in days by applying these funds is absolutely bonkers. I'll turn it around: how long do you think the time to get those crops harvested is? People didn't show up for work, the clock is ticking. I was responding to someone that seemed to imply that resources were on STANDBY to swoop in and harvest the crops. That is completely untrue and just dumb.
- sebastiennight 1y agoAh. I think there might be a misunderstanding. I read GP's comment as saying that large investors will be happy to buy "distressed assets", eg. the bankrupt farm itself, after its ruined crops caused bankrupcy. They don't care about the crop ; the same way that a speculator might have bought LA real estate for a symbolic dollar after the house itself had burnt down. They don't care about the family house, they care about buying the underlying asset (the land) for cheaper than its real value.
- e40 1y ago
- Arnt 1y agoThe bigger-pocketed entities need a plan to make a profit before they buy. That plan isn't easy to make — that's why the present owners risk going bust.