Slashdot Mirror


Robots Step Into the Backbreaking Agricultural Work That Immigrants Won't Do

HughPickens.com writes: Ilan Brat reports at the WSJ that technological advances are making it possible for robots to handle the backbreaking job of gently plucking ripe strawberries from below deep-green leaves, just as the shrinking supply of available fruit pickers has made the technology more financially attractive. "It's no longer a problem of how much does a strawberry harvester cost," says Juan Bravo, inventor of Agrobot, the picking machine. "Now it's about how much does it cost to leave a field unpicked, and that's a lot more expensive." The Agrobot costs about $100,000 and Bravo has a second, larger prototype in development. Other devices similarly are starting to assume delicate tasks in different parts of the fresh-produce industry, from planting vegetable seedlings to harvesting lettuce to transplanting roses. While farmers of corn and other commodity crops replaced most of their workers decades ago with giant combines, growers of produce and plants have largely stuck with human pickers—partly to avoid maladroit machines marring the blemish-free appearance of items that consumers see on store shelves. With workers in short supply, "the only way to get more out of the sunshine we have is to elevate the technology," says Soren Bjorn.

American farmers have in recent years resorted to bringing hundreds of thousands of workers in from Mexico on costly, temporary visas for such work. But the decades-old system needs to be replaced because "we don't have the unlimited labor supply we once did," says Rick Antle. "Americans themselves don't seem willing to take the harder farming jobs," says Charles Trauger, who has a farm in Nebraska. "Nobody's taking them. People want to live in the city instead of the farm. Hispanics who usually do that work are going to higher paying jobs in packing plants and other industrial areas." The labor shortage spurred Tanimura & Antle Fresh Foods, one of the country's largest vegetable farmers, to buy a Spanish startup called Plant Tape, whose system transplants vegetable seedlings from greenhouse to field using strips of biodegradable material fed through a tractor-pulled planting device. "This is the least desirable job in the entire company," says Becky Drumright. With machines, "there are no complaints whatsoever. The robots don't have workers' compensation, they don't take breaks."

13 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Allow me to be the first to call bullshit. by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While structural unemployment is a progressive circumstance that will hurt a lot of people very badly if it isn't handled properly I do hope these robots are good enough and cheap enough to replace human labor. Technological unemployment is a first world problem if anything is. That said, when someone says an American won't do the job what they mean is, "I'm not willing to pay a living wage for this job"

    If we don't define the terms properly we'll end up with solutions that don't fit the problems.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Allow me to be the first to call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm not willing to pay a living wage for this job

      Stop using bullshit doublespeak. A "living wage" is exactly what these people are being paid BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DYING. Nobody is starving. I submit to you, good sir, that, by definition, is a living wage. If you want to mean something else then use ACTUAL WORDS. What you're doing is intellectually dishonest.

  2. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we don't have the unlimited labor supply we once did = we don't have an unlimited amount of "slave labor"

    And I say the above as an opinion. I base that on the unwillingness of the businesses wanting to pay higher wages which would solve this issue. Or am I incorrect about this?

    1. Re:In other words... by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      same old same old.

      they've been able to keep wages, and the minimum wage, depressed so long that the labor force is shrinking not through a lack of potential workers, but through a lack of willingness for people to work for unlivable wages. if wages kept pace with productivity, as they had for the longest time, the median wage would about 140k/yr, and the minimum wage would be ~20/hr.

      this has the effect of preserving the elite's status without requiring them to provide for a strong middle class to buy their products.
      instead they preserve their relative status by keeping everyone else's financial status depressed.

      you'd almost think it's intentional.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:In other words... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's short-sighted and stupid.

      The end result will be torches and pitchforks. And even (some of) the rich know this.

  3. You're not willing to pay by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The choice isn't pay a high wage or pay a low wage.

    The choice is grow strawberries that you can sell at a price people will pay, or don't grow strawberries.

    1. Re:You're not willing to pay by itzly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is nothing as important to human life as food. Why does worker reward not reflect this?

      Current worker reward produces more than enough food, so it is reflecting what it should.

    2. Re:You're not willing to pay by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from water and air, there is nothing as important to human life as food. Why does worker reward not reflect this?

      The price of a commodity has little to do with "importance", but with scarcity and cost of production.

      But here we're talking about food for which there is demand and a market, and it's going unpicked due to difficulties in attracting workers. The demand for food has not decreased in recent years, so someone, somewhere, needs that food. And yet it's not "cost-effective" to pick it.

      The missing part of this equation is how that "hole" in the supply is fulfilled. And the answer is... cheap imports. Not a problem, you say? It is for the world's poor, because while the global food market means low prices in first world countries, it means high prices in developing countries and leaves people unable to afford to feed their families.

      This is where our priorities are messed up. We shrug our shoulders, say "market forces" and let other people shoulder the burden. Just look at the problems that US corn ethanol caused for Mexicans. To people in the States, Mexican maize is cheap, so the ethanol manufacturers snatched it up, leaving the Mexican supply far below demand, pushing prices up and causing widespread hunger.

      Don't trust the invisible hand -- everything the hand gives you, it has taken from someone else.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  4. America is finished! OVER! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Read it and weep

    1. Unlimited under or unemployed illegal aliens that can't find work.
    2. Said illegal aliens need welfare.
    3. Middle class being drained via taxation to pay for said welfare.
    4 Talk of Illegal aliens being granted amnesty so they can vote in 2016. They will vote for "benefits".

    Welcome to the new American feudal system. Only a matter of time before titles come back in vogue. Who will be your Lord?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  5. Re:Take me now, Lord by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So the US has hit Peak Mexican?

    We hit peak Mexican in 2008. Since then, the net flow has been negative (more people returning to Mexico than arriving). The Latino population is still growing because of a higher birthrate, but at that point they aren't "Mexicans", but native-born American citizens.

  6. Re:Law of supply and demand by cahuenga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. People seem to forget that labor is also a market. If people are unwilling to perform the job at a given pay rate, then the rate is then too low and must be adjusted.

    For some reason we have allowed the creation of a permanent immigrant underclass in the US and convinced ourselves that no one else here is willing to do the job. Horseshit. No one is willing to do it at the artificially low wage that agribusiness wishes to pay. Supply and demand has been legislated out of the equation and has flipped the labor market upside down.

  7. Re:Law of supply and demand by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly. People seem to forget that labor is also a market. If people are unwilling to perform the job at a given pay rate, then the rate is then too low and must be adjusted. For some reason we have allowed the creation of a permanent immigrant underclass in the US and convinced ourselves that no one else here is willing to do the job. Horseshit. No one is willing to do it at the artificially low wage that agribusiness wishes to pay. Supply and demand has been legislated out of the equation and has flipped the labor market upside down.

    Exactly. Employees leave out the "at the wage I want to pay" at the end of their "I can't get people to take this job..." whine. It's no surprise as people get better educated they don't want to do back breaking labor at low wages.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. "Need" definable for social integration? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to talk about material goods as being "unnecessary" especially if they do not contribute to one's physical safety or health, like shelter, food and water.

    For better or for worse, though, we are a consumer society and some things almost start to seem to become needs not because they contribute to our physical safety or health but because they contribute to our ability to integrate socially.

    You may not "need" the latest smartphone but at the same time, especially among younger people, you could almost say you need to have a smartphone capable of accessing social networks in a reasonable manner because it's extremely difficult to integrate with many peer groups without one. You will not be able to participate in group dynamics or posses the same social information as other people.

    The same thing could be said (more tentatively, because there are other outlets) about Netflix. If you're not able to engage with people socially because you are unaware of the types of programs they consume and cannot participate in discussions about them you are also hindered in group dynamics.

    Outside the electronics/media sphere, you can make similar judgements about clothes. You don't "need" clothes that fit a specific fashion or brand paradigm -- you can buy used clothes or dollar store clothes and meet the minimal functional needs for clothing. But style and manner of dress is very important for engaging in peer groups, and like it or not people are in/excluded or find it easier or harder to engage in social activities if their mode of dress is compatible with their peer groups.

    Now it's easy to make a lot of value judgements -- especially about social networking (the companies, phenomenon, etc) -- but their existence, usage and impact on social life is a reality and at some point I think some of these things become needs for reasonable social integration. Excluding them because they don't meet some minimalist description of "need" starts to sound myopic and mean spirited because I don't know anyone who just lives based on minimal need.