Did California really need to fund housing for farmworkers?

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
...

What this all boils down to is that you want your legislators to intervene in the agricultural and housing markets despite the fact that they have been failing miserably at doing anything. You obviously harbor some suspicion of the free markets. I want them to focus government spending on a select few areas, not including agriculture and housing. And I don't have any problems with the free market because it's the best option we have.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Part of it explains how these Workers are Migrants, moving all over the place from one Crop to the next. They only stay in any community for short periods each year. So the Market could build something, but it would spend most of its' time Vacant. Not really attractive for Private Builders/Developers.

There are plenty of owners who rent temporary housing. But in most of those cases the employers pay for it. The free market alternative is to let the farmers pay these people more to make up for that or to directly pay for their housing and to pass on the expense to consumers.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
...

What this all boils down to is that you want your legislators to intervene in the agricultural and housing markets despite the fact that they have been failing miserably at doing anything.

You are overgeneralizing.

You obviously harbor some suspicion of the free markets. I want them to focus government spending on a select few areas, not including agriculture and housing. And I don't have any problems with the free market because it's the best option we have.

Government is a market player.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: sandorski
Part of it explains how these Workers are Migrants, moving all over the place from one Crop to the next. They only stay in any community for short periods each year. So the Market could build something, but it would spend most of its' time Vacant. Not really attractive for Private Builders/Developers.

There are plenty of owners who rent temporary housing. But in most of those cases the employers pay for it. The free market alternative is to let the farmers pay these people more to make up for that or to directly pay for their housing and to pass on the expense to consumers.

Somehow I think you're overlooking the impact of what you want. Many of those Businesses probably are scraping by as it is.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You are overgeneralizing.

Oh really? Either you are just being argumentative or you disagree with me that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets. This is a pretty specific program so there's not much room for nuance.

Government is a market player.

Of course it is. And California has this program. The issue is whether the government SHOULD be a market player in this instance or not.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Somehow I think you're overlooking the impact of what you want. Many of those Businesses probably are scraping by as it is.

Not really. Farmers have tons of other subsidies. Food prices were rising for a long time. Even if they had neither of these in their favor they can raise the price of their product and let the consumers pay for it. Worst case scenario as senseamp indicates is that they would switch crops.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
You are overgeneralizing.

Oh really? Either you are just being argumentative or you disagree with me that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets. This is a pretty specific program so there's not much room for nuance.

I disagree with you that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets, in case you haven't picked that up from my posts. Wasn't trying to be nuanced.

Government is a market player.

Of course it is. And California has this program. The issue is whether the government SHOULD be a market player in this instance or not.

That issue is settled in what we call ELECTIONS.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
You are overgeneralizing.

Oh really? Either you are just being argumentative or you disagree with me that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets. This is a pretty specific program so there's not much room for nuance.

I disagree with you that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets, in case you haven't picked that up from my posts. Wasn't trying to be nuanced.

Government is a market player.

Of course it is. And California has this program. The issue is whether the government SHOULD be a market player in this instance or not.

That issue is settled in what we call ELECTIONS.

LOL. Then what is too general about:

What this all boils down to is that you want your legislators to intervene in the agricultural and housing markets despite the fact that they have been failing miserably at doing anything.

Presumably you don't like my snide comment about the legislators having failed at anything but it's hard to find someone who disagrees with me at this juncture in history.

And obviously elections solve this issue. This is Politics & News. Maybe you should go into Bush/McCain/Obama threads and say, "hey guys, elections will resolve this." People want to discuss their preferences regardless of whether they can vote in an upcoming election or not.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: senseamp
You are overgeneralizing.

Oh really? Either you are just being argumentative or you disagree with me that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets. This is a pretty specific program so there's not much room for nuance.

I disagree with you that government is best not intervening in agricultural or housing markets, in case you haven't picked that up from my posts. Wasn't trying to be nuanced.

Government is a market player.

Of course it is. And California has this program. The issue is whether the government SHOULD be a market player in this instance or not.

That issue is settled in what we call ELECTIONS.

LOL. Then what is too general about:

What this all boils down to is that you want your legislators to intervene in the agricultural and housing markets despite the fact that they have been failing miserably at doing anything.

Presumably you don't like my snide comment about the legislators having failed at anything but it's hard to find someone who disagrees with me at this juncture in history.

I disagree with you. They failed in a lot of things, and they do a lot of things right. They are just imperfect people representing other imperfect people. Guess what, your free market utopia would not be all that perfect either.

And obviously elections solve this issue. This is Politics & News. Maybe you should go into Bush/McCain/Obama threads and say, "hey guys, elections will resolve this." People want to discuss their preferences regardless of whether they can vote in an upcoming election or not.

OK, we discussed our preferences.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: senseamp
OK, we discussed our preferences.

Yup...

*tumbleweed passes by*

 

[theeedude]

Since you mentioned tumbleweed, agricultural areas of CA are highly polluted with dust and other air contaminants due to winds sweeping up debris and fertilizers from the soil. It's fairly well documented that they have much higher rates of respiratory and other related illnesses. HVAC may well be a health necessity and not just a luxury in those areas for reasons aside from heat, which is actually a valid reason in itself.

 

[Fear No Evil]

And this is why our country is in deep trouble. We could cut ice cube subsidies for eskimos and the left would cry about it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Serna Farmworker Fund

Seriously?

Some of the buildings built with this grant money has HVAC. Since when is HVAC, even in hot places, a human right?

More importantly, one of the arguments in favor of immigration is that we get cheap labor for our consumer society. But what is the point if we're just subsidizing this cheap labor with state funds? Why not let the market sort out what conditions these workers are willing to put up with? In the unlikely event it's more profitable for them to be outside of the USA, then food costs will go up and wages will attract more workers either domestically or internationally.

I remember seeing a program on CBS when I was a kid about the horrible living conditions of migrant farm workers. The housing program you refer to was put in place in response to that situation.

In retrospect, watching the program helped teach me compassion for other people.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Serna Farmworker Fund

Seriously?

Some of the buildings built with this grant money has HVAC. Since when is HVAC, even in hot places, a human right?

More importantly, one of the arguments in favor of immigration is that we get cheap labor for our consumer society. But what is the point if we're just subsidizing this cheap labor with state funds? Why not let the market sort out what conditions these workers are willing to put up with? In the unlikely event it's more profitable for them to be outside of the USA, then food costs will go up and wages will attract more workers either domestically or internationally.

I remember seeing a program on CBS when I was a kid about the horrible living conditions of migrant farm workers. The housing program you refer to was put in place in response to that situation.

In retrospect, watching the program helped teach me compassion for other people.

Unless you are a pro-life Republican.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Of course the health implications would cost more than subsidizing AC for farm workers, but hey, who cares, it's free market, can't be wrong.

The free market is the best system we know for allocating resources. If you know of a better way, let me know. Otherwise, by your logic we might as well start a huge funding program to subsidize personal trainers and nutritionists. After all, that could be cheaper than paying for the obesity epidemic.

State is part of the free market economy, it can subsidize or tax certain activities to channel resource allocation to socially desirable ends. CA chooses to subsidize housing, some with such immense luxuries like AC, for farm workers to attract more labor to fields to keep our agricultural sector competitive and fresh produce affordable.

Your first sentence is contradictory. "A free market is a term that economists use to describe a market which is free from government intervention (i.e. no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system and no governmental monopolies)." Text States are part of the economy, they're not part of the free market by definition.

This thread is funny. No one in here even knows what farms we're talking about. These could be farms outside of San Diego, with balmy 80 degree temperatures year round. These could be on farms with a high profit margin, like say a boutique wine vineyard. Or they could be farms in the desert. I don't know, do any of you? Does California have the money to pay for AC living on any of these farms? Nope.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Serna Farmworker Fund

Seriously?

Some of the buildings built with this grant money has HVAC. Since when is HVAC, even in hot places, a human right?

More importantly, one of the arguments in favor of immigration is that we get cheap labor for our consumer society. But what is the point if we're just subsidizing this cheap labor with state funds? Why not let the market sort out what conditions these workers are willing to put up with? In the unlikely event it's more profitable for them to be outside of the USA, then food costs will go up and wages will attract more workers either domestically or internationally.

I remember seeing a program on CBS when I was a kid about the horrible living conditions of migrant farm workers. The housing program you refer to was put in place in response to that situation.

In retrospect, watching the program helped teach me compassion for other people.

Unless you are a pro-life Republican.

What?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Serna Farmworker Fund

Seriously?

Some of the buildings built with this grant money has HVAC. Since when is HVAC, even in hot places, a human right?

More importantly, one of the arguments in favor of immigration is that we get cheap labor for our consumer society. But what is the point if we're just subsidizing this cheap labor with state funds? Why not let the market sort out what conditions these workers are willing to put up with? In the unlikely event it's more profitable for them to be outside of the USA, then food costs will go up and wages will attract more workers either domestically or internationally.

I remember seeing a program on CBS when I was a kid about the horrible living conditions of migrant farm workers. The housing program you refer to was put in place in response to that situation.

In retrospect, watching the program helped teach me compassion for other people.

Unless you are a pro-life Republican.

What?

Exactly.

 

[Drift3r]

OMFG I can't believe people are proposing that AC is a requirement/entitlement to live and work in the state of California if you are a a farmer or farm hand. ROTFLMAO!!! How the hell do people in the Middle-east, Africa, South and Central America and Asia farm live without AC? Oh wait most don't have the luxury of AC units in so they just learn to deal with heat and humidity.

 

[her209]

Does New England get subsidies for heating their houses in the winter?

 

[theeedude]

Noone is saying AC is an entitlement. It's a subsidy to attract affordable farm labor to keep produce costs low.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
OMFG I can't believe people are proposing that AC is a requirement/entitlement to live and work in the state of California if you are a a farmer or farm hand. ROTFLMAO!!! How the hell do people in the Middle-east, Africa, South and Central America and Asia farm live without AC? Oh wait most don't have the luxury of AC units in so they just learn to deal with heat and humidity.

Fail

 

[BoomerD]

This is yet another corporate welfare subsidy.

The big farm lobby groups have pushed for this to help reduce the costs to the farmers, even though the biggest benefit for this is seen by the large corporate-owned farms.

Also, the Mexican-immigrant lobby groups like MeCha (?) UFW, and La Raza among others have lobbied for this for decades.

Let them live in cardboard boxes in the orchards...

 

[1LordEmperor1]

Originally posted by: Triumph1.6 billion people live on this planet without electricity, let alone air conditioning. I'm willing to bet that some percentage of those people live in hot areas. I'm also pretty sure that some of those people who live in hot areas, work for a living. If AC is a necessity, why aren't those people dead?

Under those conditions people do die.

 

[theeedude]

That's not going to stop some people from wanting to turn America into a third world banana republic in the name of free markets.

 

[herm0016]

people die from a lot of things. the government does not supply me with heat in the winter when it is 20 degrees below 0 F. I would say that is much more dangerous than 100 degree heat. i walk outside in the wind for more than just a few minutes and i will get frost bite, may survive an hour or 2 before being hypothermic and dieing soon after. I do work outside for long hours, usually 12 hour shifits. we are supplied heat in the winter to make our work possible, but no air in the summer. we do just fine.