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."

46 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 trout007 · · Score: 2

      Strawberries are typically grown as annuals. I live in Florida and we have many acres of abandoned orange groves still producing oranges with zero input from anyone. It is simply too expensive to pick them and bring them to market. Nobody will pay that much for an orange. It's interesting because every once in a while when OJ prices spike due to a bad harvest somewhere you will see people show up at these groves and clean them out. But typically they just fall off the tree and rot.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Allow me to be the first to call bullshit. by GameMaster · · Score: 2

      Yea, I find it a little funny (in a sad, depressing, sort of way). We have a short memory as a country/culture. Most people today don't realize that these are the exact same arguments slave owners used to use to justify the continuance of slavery (and, almost certainly, then used to justify the sharecropping system after slavery was ended). Instead of "I can't find American's to do the job", they used to argue "I won't be able to find a white person to do the job". It's all complete bullshit.

      The simple fact is, if you're not paying someone enough to live off of and/or you are putting them in a work environment that will literally destroy their body over their career then you are just vermin living off the misery of others. A great example of this was, a while back, when Steven Colbert spoke about illegal immigration in front of a congressional committee. It was posted to YouTube because it was a rare opportunity to hear him speak out of character but what really got my attention was the gentleman who spoke immediately after him. The guy in question was an illegal immigrant rights/labor activist who was there to protest the horrible working conditions (extreme temperatures without adequate water; poor medical services in case of emergencies such as heat stroke or heat related heart attacks; too many hours of work to be healthy; etc.). You know, all those things that make these into jobs "American's don't want/won't do"... It's not that the illegal immigrants want to do them (in those conditions and at that pay) any more than the Americans do, it just that in the case of the illegal immigrants, the farm owners can prey on their higher level of desperation.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  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 circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      i always thought it would make a great conspiracy dystopian story where the superrich, with everything automated, don't need us anymore

      so they simply kill us all off

      the earth reduced to 700,000 souls from 7,000,000,000 in a matter of days (some sort of highly infectious agent?)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. 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.

    4. Re:In other words... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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?

      You are incorrect. If the business paid higher wages, they would have to raise the price of strawberries to cover the cost. Then consumers wouldn't buy the strawberries, and would buy something less labor intensive instead, like watermelons. Then the business would fire the strawberry pickers, and switch to growing watermelons.

    5. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, plot twist?

      The super rich, having vanquished the threat of mass uprising, end up finding that the plague they unleashed can (the horrors) actually infect them too!

    6. Re:In other words... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      The core problem is that technology is reducing the market value of unskilled/low-skilled human labor below the level that someone can survive on. This is an inevitable consequence of automation, and it's one we're not really prepared mentally to handle, because it goes against all of our core assumptions. After all, human labor has been the core element of production since the dawn of history. We're primed to think that if you're willing to work hard, you should not just survive but get ahead, and that's not the case anymore. You can't start in the mail room and work your way up. You can't even get a mail room job most likely, because the MailBot 9000 handles that now.

      We're reacting with the tools we've used in the past - subsidies and price floors, in the form of social safety net programs (which weren't meant to do that), and a minimum wage. We're going to need something better, because eventually things will start breaking even worse. What happens when consumers increasingly lack the money to buy commodities the robots produce? You start having breakdowns in the markets because price signals aren't functioning as expected.

      So what do we do? Probably something like a guaranteed basic income - distribute some portion of the value of the robots' production so everyone can afford the basics to survive. At that point you can get rid of the minimum wage laws, because nobody needs to earn some minimum amount from labor to survive.

  3. Take me now, Lord by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, I never even imagined seeing a time when we ran short of Mexicans.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Take me now, Lord by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the US has hit Peak Mexican? Is it possible to recover more of the remaining Mexican population by fracking their cities with high pressure steam?

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    2. Re:Take me now, Lord by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mexico is not so poor anymore. Its per capita income is similar to some European countries (like Bulgaria), and higher than that in the border regions with the US. Combined with the stagnant US economy, this means fewer Mexicans want to work in the US than in the past.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Take me now, Lord by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      The numbers I cited are purchasing power parity, not raw income. The differences in costs are at least largely factored in already.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  4. 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 Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      But when you consider that the people who used to pick fruit are now working in factories sticking consumer goods in boxes, you have to consider our society's priorities pretty messed up. Aside from water and air, there is nothing as important to human life as food. Why does worker reward not reflect this?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:You're not willing to pay by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or more to the point, to compete with strawberries grown in other countries under whatever conditions they deem acceptable.

      I've long supported the concept of a VAT-equivalent for pollution (PAT = Pollution Added Tax), where goods are taxed at fixed rates for different pollutants embodied by each manufacturing step, goods leaving the PAT zone are rebated, and goods entering the PAT zone are taxed based on an estimate of their embodied pollution, similar to how VAT works with value changes / rebates / taxes. VAT serves as a way to tax goods without unfairly harming the competitiveness of your products and favoring imported goods, and PAT could extend that logic to pollution controls. But maybe PAT isn't enough. Maybe we also need a HRAT, a "Human Rights Added Tax", which imposes extra fees based on things like human rights abuses, poverty wages, etc embodied in the production of a product, to provide a level playing field for countries with higher standards.

      One would have to handle things relatively, of course - a poverty wage in southern California is not the same as a poverty wage in Nigeria, for example, and you don't want to make international sales prohibitive for poor countries simply because their per-capita GDP isn't sufficient. But I'd find it fair to add extra costs at the dock for products produced by factories with inhumane working and living conditions, etc, which keep workers trapped in such conditions by all sorts of means (threats of deportation, threats of violence, unpayable "company store"-type debts, etc). So a strawberry farm in Nigeria paying its workers $2,50 an hour wouldn't be seen as abusive (like one in California would) since that's over double the average national wage and easily meets local cost of living expenses - but a Nigerian farm that left its workers exposed to toxic doses of pesticides and threatened to seize everything their workers own if they try to quit would be seen as abusive even if the nominal salary was $2,50 an hour.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    3. Re:You're not willing to pay by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      People say the average worker isn't making as much as they used to, but I think that people are just buying a lot more stuff than they used to. Strawberries are a great example. They used to be something you would buy once in a while. We buy them pretty much every week when they are in season, and I don't think of myself as that well off. Cellular phones, cable TV, Internet, and computers. None of this stuff existed 50 years ago. Our budgets may be stretched, but a lot of it is because of the things we have decided are necessary. The other bad thing is that people are much more likely to go into debt to get these luxuries using credit cards and other sources of financing. They spend a lot of money servicing their debts.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. 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.

    5. Re:You're not willing to pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am from a farming family (in the UK). And here are some important things to learn:

      1) Huge landowning farmers are rich. On top of being rich, they get a lot of subsidies. They get the subsidies because, being rich, they can bribe politicians. This makes them richer, and more able to bribe. The EU is something I support entirely in principle, because trade is better than war, but in few areas has become more corrupt than subsidising landowners;

      2) Smaller farmers struggle. You know why they struggle? Because there are about half a dozen highly profitable supermarkets which have nearly all the negotiating power in deciding the prices of goods they buy. The larger farmers are fine with this, producing the least tasty foods in the worst possible conditions (in the case of animals), because they can make profit on volume, and supermarkets can hit the consumer with a huge markup, behave wastefully (it is ridiculous. how much emphasis is put on appearance of fruit and vegetables, for example, and consumers have been engineered into believing this will have an effect on the taste/quality), and still make a massive profit;

      3) The larger concerns would have no problem paying their workers more, but then they would make less profit;

      4) The smaller concerns tend to be more enthusiastic about the taste and (for animals) the welfare of their product, but they cannot pay their workers more because of 2).

      Unfortunately, smaller farmers are really bad at working cooperatively - the NFU is one of the most conservative unions, and dominated by 1). They could have taken up the opportunity to set up home food delivery networks, but this completely passed them by. So this business has now become associated with overpriced "organic" flim-flammers like Riverford and Abel&Cole, the mainstay of GROLIES and other dullards who have more money than sense, rather than mainstream consumers of food (i.e. almost everyone).

    6. Re:You're not willing to pay by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are right, but I think to a point.

      50 years ago you didn't need a cellphone or a personal computer. Life would be very difficult without a PC today and likewise for a cellphone. If you are old like me you will remember the ubiquitous payphone, and you will also remember paper-and-phone-driven processes that no longer exist because things are handled more efficiently using computers-and-Internet.

      But it's true that very few *need* Cable TV, Netflix, or the latest smartphone.

    7. Re:You're not willing to pay by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      In Greece we grow strawberries, with most of the production exported to northern Europe. Northern Europe eats strawberries because to grow strawberries at a price people will pay you need low wages (or robots!) - despite Greece's huge (25%) unemployment, no Greek is working in the fields as a strawberries picker (that's the hard labour), so we must employ (paying -illegaly- low wages) all those illegal immigrants (they are illegal, and it's important to note that because it's important for the point i try to make - AND because they are illegal...) invading Greece/Europe seeking higher wages than those they earn in their places of origin (but are satisfied with lower wages than those legal in Greece/Europe - so, by both being illegal immigrants and illegal worker, they steal the ability of legal workers, some of them legal immigrants by the way, to buy strawberries).

      I don't try to blame only the illegal immigrants (our Greek producers that illegaly employ them are also to blame), just to claim that this problem is much more complicated than just "sell at a price people will pay, or don't grow strawberries", and the choises you present must include other factors - some of them quite embarrassing for the usual left-wing person that wants both "open borders" and "wage equality" (those problematic situations -together with the cultural problems Muslim, legal or illegal, immigrants create- contributes to the nationalist rise in Europe).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    8. Re:You're not willing to pay by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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. Air is the most important commodity, yet it is free. Water is the second most important, yet it is extremely cheap (as a residential consumer in California I get about 5 gallons for a penny).

      you have to consider our society's priorities pretty messed up.

      Do you believe that air is free because of messed up social priorities?

    9. Re:You're not willing to pay by njnnja · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is puzzling you is called the paradox of value. It can be described as the apparent paradox that water is necessary to life, while diamonds are not, but diamonds are much more expensive than water. The answer is that decisions to buy and sell are made at the margin, so the question isn't "How valuable is water to you?" but rather, "How valuable is the next gallon of water to you?" Since, in "our society", we have enough water to support life and agriculture, the marginal gallon of water is used, say, to water golf courses and wash cars. These low-value marginal uses means that the price of water is low, as is actually seen.

      Similarly, with the average American's BMI pushing 30, the marginal value of the next strawberry isn't very big to the vast majority of Americans. So the price of strawberries is low, and there is little room to pay strawberry pickers a good wage. Also see Worth: Just because you're necessary doesn't mean you're important.

    10. Re:You're not willing to pay by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      People say the average worker isn't making as much as they used to, but I think that people are just buying a lot more stuff than they used to.

      That's a statement of median salary vs. GDP, which is only tangentially related to spending (i.e., only in the sense that consumer spending affects GDP). And wages and salaries really have been falling relative to GDP over the past 50 years.

      Cellular phones, cable TV, Internet, and computers. None of this stuff existed 50 years ago. Our budgets may be stretched, but a lot of it is because of the things we have decided are necessary.

      On the flip side, there are a lot of things that are cheaper today than they were 50 years ago, such as clothing and food (according to this article, those two expenses went from about 42% of the average household budget in 1950 to about 17% in 2003).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:You're not willing to pay by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or more to the point, to compete with strawberries grown in other countries under whatever conditions they deem acceptable.

      You can't get strawberries from much further away than Mexico, and even those are inferior to fruit from within the country. Strawberries don't ship well. Most Mexican strawberries never ripen, some of 'em get kinda close but if you know what the real thing is like (I grew up in Santa Cruz) then you know they're crap.

      You can get frozen strawberries from further away, but that's expensive too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. 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'
    13. Re:You're not willing to pay by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      This is an idea that I'm surprised hasn't gained more traction. Using import tarrifs as a means of protectionism is quite rightly considered bad form internationally. However, using import tarrifs to create a level playing field seems perfectly fair. After all, if companies in your country are mandated by law to pay a minimum wage, paid holidays and parental leave, and are forced to respect workers rights and health and safety, the countries without minimum wages or paid leave and where nobody bats an eyelid when a 10-year-old boy dies in a mineral sand landslip do have something of an immoral competitive advantage.

      Thus I would think that the best approach would be to charge import tarrifs from countries without comparable labour laws to your own, calculated on the cost of offering similar protections to those in your country. This would promote domestic production in the short term, and would promote better working practices globally in the long term. Sounds like a win-win, to me, and an easy one for the politicians to sell to the public.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    14. Re:You're not willing to pay by denzacar · · Score: 2

      And then what?
      Force the "third world" to eat overpriced (for their wallets) strawberries while you don't get yours cause they are still rotting on the vine in the fields?

      Strawberries are more perishable than corn.
      Also, you can't pick them all at once with a huge, field-leveling machine. Too gentle for that.
      Nor can you store them like corn. Nor can you turn them into HFCS or feed livestock with them.
      And it is literally a backbreaking job to pick them.

      But you need them picked during a very short window, and you need a LOT of them picked fast...
      And pretty soon you're either employing armies of people who can still only pick your strawberries while there is light outside - or you got strawberries rotting in the field. After you've spent all that water and fertilizer on them.
      And then you have to sort them and rush them to the market before they rot in their little baskets.

      So you can sell them cheap and fast - or close up shop and let those armies of pickers go.
      And just plant corn instead.

      Notice how nobody questions the use of combines to pick corn instead of hiring "third world" do it by hand.
      Cause if anyone used people instead of machines to pick the corn it would rot "on the stalk", and the price of food would skyrocket and it would end up hurting the most the very people one would try to "raise from poverty".

      Endgame is not to make everyone rich by paying more for simple work. It does not work that way.
      That would just be devaluing money until everyone is a millionaire while a loaf of bread costs two million.
      Or four. Or five.

      The goal is to make expensive things cheap and affordable so that "poor" means "we only have two cars and our TV is too small".
      Make pickers into buyers.

      If you can't find pickers for a certain price it no longer means that you don't want to pay them a decent wage.
      It means you can't AFFORD them at the wages they can now earn doing something else.
      They are no longer illiterate half-humans half-slaves willing to do any job just so as not to starve.
      They had to fight HARD to get to that point. And there is more road ahead.

      Now the goal is to have robots pick so many strawberries, that you need to hire more people for your strawberry processing plant where you make jams, pies, ice creams...
      That's how you pay those pickers more - by creating better paying jobs.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  5. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Once you put food production into the hands of robots, we are soon going to be in trouble.

  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. A timeless scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Years ago I picked blueberries and apples in Maine, cherries in NY and pecans in Arizona. It's always the same story. The farmers want low-paid slaves. They go to great lengths to discourage local workers so that they can get foreigners who can be exploited.

    An apple farmer I dealt with would shout, threaten and demand that people could easily carry a 24' wood ladder vertically, with no practice. When he'd scared away the locals he'd go to the state labor board and say, "See? Americans won't do this work. I need a planeload of Jamaicans." The Jamaicans could all be housed in one big building and were not allowed off the property unescorted, by law. They were essentially incarcerated servants.

        Though the picking in New England was still better paid than the picking in Arizona and S. California because the supply of desperate, illegal Mexicans was virtually unlimited in the Southwest.

    The H1-B visa situation in the tech industry must surely be similar. For tech employers to say they can't find Americans for the jobs is a ludicrous lie. In any other industry if an employer said "Americans won't or can't do it" the natural answer would be that the employer is simply not willing to pay a fair wage.

    The issue here is not labor. It's factory farming done by giant corporations whose R&D focuses mainly on how to cut corners in order to increase profit.

  8. Economics preventing higher wages by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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"

    It's not a matter of not being willing to pay higher wages. The economics of the industry are such that it is impossible to pay substantially higher wages. Profit margins in farming are low in the best of times and labor cost is a very substantial percent of the cost of most agriculture products. Higher wages in crop picking does not result in meaningfully higher productivity. A person has a physical limit on how much work they can accomplish in a given amount of time. Higher wages will not result in better productivity beyond a certain point. There also is no way for a single farm (even large agribusinesses) to set prices high enough to offset paying higher wages. We as consumers demand that food prices be kept low and unless you can remove the labor component from the price equation the only way to keep prices low is to pay low wages.

    I would love to pay farm workers better wages for picking crops but I really do not see a way to make it a reality. Has nothing to do with a willingness or not to pay living wages.

  9. 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.
  10. Re:America is finished! OVER! by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're an idiot. The middle class isn't being drained via taxation. Taxes are lower right now than at any point in the last century. It's the stagnation of wages that's causing the middle class to have problems. It's amazing how people will assert something as true that can be debunked with five seconds of Google searching.

  11. Half the story. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    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?

    Like almost everyone else, you're blindly blaming the business and ignoring the other half of the equation - the consumer. How much will Joe or Jane Sixpack pay for a pint of strawberries? That ultimately determines how much the business can pay the picker.

    You can't have low prices, high quality, and high wages for the worker - pick two.

    1. Re:Half the story. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Actually, you can somewhat increase wages to the workers if the people at the top making enough to retire on every single year accept less. It's not as if they're irreplaceable.

      Of course, if workers in general make higher wages, their willingness and ability to pay more for strawberries increases as well.

      Funny thing, strawberries haven't suddenly gotten harder to grow than they used to be.They don't require any more labor than they ever did. Wages in general haven't kept up with productivity.

      The one increase we can measure is the share of wealth held by the very richest people. That has skyrocketed.

      One other clue is the note that the workers are moving a level up the chain where they are paid more. That is, more than they make as pickers, but no doubt less than the legal workers the warehouses used to employ. But I also note that strawberries aren't getting cheaper.

  12. "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.

    1. Re:"Need" definable for social integration? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      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

      See, here you're confusing two very different things. A shitty low end Android will let you access Facebook. The iPhone 6 will let you hang with the rich kids. Rich kids have expensive habits. Rich kids often have expensive habits to show off that they're rich. Our little fishing boat doesn't fit very well in a yacht club, am I now poor because I can't "fit in" with the millionaires? Sorry, but wanting to pose in an economic league you're not doesn't strike me as any genuine poverty. At least not severe enough to forcibly take my money to even things out.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  13. Most racist post title ever by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 3

    I assume the original poster doesn't want to do the backbreaking work either -- but that's a moot point, they're too rich and white for that anyway.

  14. Historical perspective by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oregon is a major producer of strawberries in the U.S. Sixty years ago, most of the strawberries here were picked by local youths, as their summer jobs. In the decades that followed, the tradition of kids having manual-labor jobs fell victim to increasing affluence, changing social values, and an influx of migrant workers. A new generation of parents no longer felt it important to teach their kids the work ethic through hard, manual work. Some might argue that, if the strawberries are spoiling in the fields, it started decades ago with the spoiling of our kids.

    1. Re:Historical perspective by dlingman · · Score: 2

      A new generation of parents no longer felt it important to teach their kids the work ethic through hard, manual work.

      Or maybe they felt that having their kids spending their summers slaving in fields for piss poor wages wasn't a good thing anymore. Don't know about you, but if I can find a way for my kids to have a better summer job than that, I will. Hopefully it will be something that will be in the same field they eventually want to work in.

      There are worse things than picking berries - I paid for my first year of university by picking pine cones for the MNR to eventually turn into tree seedlings for reforestation. Would I want my kids to do that? Heck no.

  15. Re:tax unhealthy choices by qbast · · Score: 2

    How exactly did you get from 'do it on your own dime' to 'i want a dime every time you do it'?

  16. then maybe you should find another line of work by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    nobody is entitled to have people work for them at whatever price they deem sufficient. that's not how a free marked works.

    1. Re:then maybe you should find another line of work by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that the underlying assumptions we have about labor and its value are becoming increasingly outdated. For pretty much the entirety of human history, productivity has depended on human labor, and thus, human labor had specific value, even if unskilled. Even as we added animals and machines, you needed a human to lead/operate/drive them. The difference now is that we increasingly don't need those people any more, because the machines drive themselves. The production is no longer done by humans, it's done by robots, and as such the basic value of unskilled human labor is falling, and in a perfectly efficient market, is not enough to support that laborer.

      This is a big problem, and it's only going to get worse. The pool of jobs available for people who can't somehow retrain into an advanced skill is going to shrink, and it's going to keep shrinking, regardless of whether that's fast or slow. Right now we've been propping up the old system with a measure of economic interventions - both by subsidizing the value of labor via social safety net programs, and by setting price floors via minimum wage laws. In the long run, it's not going to remain a viable solution.

      What we'll eventually need to do is something like a guaranteed basic income, where everyone is given enough money for basic living expenses. You'd then be free to earn additional (disposable) income on top of that by working. This keeps people from starving and rioting, but it also preserves the market functionality of the economy, because people still have money to buy the goods the robots produce.

      How do you pay for this? For one, change from taxing human labor, i.e. income, and instead tax the new source of production - robots. You could also get rid of all the other social safety net programs, because they're now redundant (and probably less efficient), and get rid of the minimum wage as it's no longer needed. When no one is forced to work to survive, markets can be allowed to freely set the price of labor, however low.