🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCGRANT.94Dec1024837@rascals.stanford.edu>,
mcgrant@rascals.stanford.edu (Michael C. Grant) wrote:

> In article <gilbert-3011942352000001@blv-pm3-ip1.halcyon.com>
> gilbert@halcyon.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>    Exactly.  If they were legal, wouldn't they, and the employers, be
>    better off?  What is the importance of keeping the current arrangement
>    illegal?
> You don't get it.

This is, of course, why a person asks a question.  But thanks for the
reminder.  I would like to "get" your point, even if I remain in
disagreement.

> So the point is, you claim that these are jobs no American wants.  I
> claim they DO want them, just not at the slave-driving wages and
> working conditions that a typical migrant farm worker must experience.

And of course, you have evidence of this.  Some years ago, a number of farms
tried hiring only legal employees at minimum wage.  Poor results.  They still
use illegal labor.

>    > No. Food is so incredibly cheap in this country that we can enjoy a
>    > healthy increase in the cost of produce before the country suffers.
>    And what good does that bring?
> Ummm, it preserves our country's moral fiber? It does what's RIGHT?

Subjective point, at best.  And I do not see the connection between your
answer and the question I asked.  The issue was the cost of food, regardless
of how.

> Are you that fixated on saving a buck?

No, but I am fixated on overall economic impact.  And I think there will
be real impact.

>             Slaves used to really keep
> the cost of cotton farming low; would you like to reinstate slavery?

No certainly not.  But your reasoning does not demonstrate that what I
have offered for consideration would in fact lead to slavery.  And I
think you bandy about the term slavery a bit carelessly, tho it is
a pretty effective word if you want shock value.

Slavery involved ownership of people, and forced labor against the will
of the workers.  Nothing proposed here includes any of those things.
It includes workers who already come here freely to work for a low wage,
who would possibly be able to come here legeally, work in better conditions
for the same or better wages, still freely.

>    > The savings produced by allowing a group of people to assume
>    > second-class status and work in conditions no American would stand
>    > is NOT worth the extra quarter or so it might save me on my
>    > orange juice.
>    Why not?  Bear in mind, I am talking about an IMPROVEMENT in their working
>    conditions.
> Let's see, an improvement from abominable to dismal? Not good enough.

Subjective.

> 
>    >    This could also relieve the lack-of-power situation
>    >    with the workers.
>    > So could insuring that only legal workers have those jobs.
>    Which is why making them legal workers sounds like a reasonable thing.
> See argument above.
> 
>    If the cost of the strawberries I grow doubles, will I sell more, or
>    less of them?
> It depends what you charge, of course.

And we at least can agree that if expenses go up, what a farmer charges will
go up?

>         But, in general, you will
> sell the same amount of food, because we suddenly didn't get
> less hungry.

Being hungry does not mean you eat the food I grow and sell.  You might start
eating fruit imported from South America, or different foods.

>   If I sell less of them, then is this better?
> Absolutely, if that higher cost allows workers to work in humane,
> and legal working conditions and at legal wages.

I am talking about both these conditions.  I think legitimizing this labor
force will inherantly provide better conditions.  And by definition, the
wages they earn will be "legal", and no less than what they come here now,
voluntarily, to work for under poor conditions.  Probably higer.

>    Will the
>    same number of farmers be able to compete, and will the same number
>    of workers have jobs?  If not, why is this a better thing?
>    Just how is it that economic factors drive people out of business?
> I don't believe it will drive a significant number of people out
> of a job or out of business, plain and simple.,

Not plain and simple.  Your point is your subjective view, and tho you
make it consistently, your have not really substantiated it.

>    Er, how _drastic_ did I claim it would be?
> 
> Well, I don't claim anyone would be driven out of business, for one.

The question did not address your claims.  How drastic did *I* claim it
*would* be?  I believe there are legitimate concerns to think about.

And you dropped the issue, and the requested explanaition of the
brief lesson in economics you offered, so I will bring it back and ask
again...

# >     Profit not only depends on the cost
# > of the item but the number sold, so by definition, no market is priced
# > out of the reach of the consumer.
#
# Profit, or income?
#
# I guess I need help understanding this point.  The first part of the sentence
# is relatively easy, but the jump to the last part is not clear. 
#
...
#
# Just how is it that economic factors drive people out of business?

> I claim that the increase in price simply won't be high enough to
> drive farmers out of business. They'll raise their prices, sure, but
> people still have to eat, right?

Sure, but when food like strawberries become too expensive, they may stop
eating them in favor of something else. If the farmers can not produce
the food cheaply enough to sell it at prices competitive with less labor
intensive foods, they may loose.

I have not said this will happen, but it is a real possibility, and
I fail to see how increased cost can not have a negative impact.

>                       And I don't think the price increase
> is going to be that drastic.

Well go ahead and quantify that.  What percentage of the cost of produce is
the farm labor?  What if you double that cost? 

What if the migrant workers WANT the jobs at lower than US wages, especially
if they are legitimized, and conditions improve.  For the most part, those
workers bust their butts, and are not prisoners.  They have economic need,
and it is fulfilled better here than anywhere else they can turn.  Why is it
that we need to reserve the work for people who have in fact turned it down
in the past, beacuse the folks who come here freely to do it for these wages,
with some risk, are from across some border?

The best point you raise concerns the ability of the workers to have some
legal influence over their situation, which would allow them to fight
for improved conditions and all around better treatment.  Your answer is
to send them home.  I argue making them legal will result in gaining this
influence.

You talk about slavery, but I think you trivialize what slavery really was/is.
Are these people owned, or held at all against their will? No.
If this were a case of people being forced to do work against their free
will, the I would agree.  But I believe this is truely an opportunity
for many of the workers.  While the work is hard, it offers them something
they can not get anywhere else.  So sending them home might be, to 
paraphrase your own words a change from "dismal to abominable? Not good enough."

-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@halcyon.com