-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Farmers worry about worker shortage
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Vic
Elite Member
Who knew that all the pet food in the US came from Canada?
And it's true, the global economy sucks. We should make sure that all the other nations in the world stay in poverty and we should throw every single member of the Longshoremans Union out of work. In the meantime, we should dramatically increase our own cost of living with more expensive goods and in less supply. Is that the argument of the anti-globalists?
Probably because people get visions of the poor farmer slaving away on his farm with his wife, 4 kids, two dogs and a lot of cats. When I bet farming is now done by corporations, though I havent verified.
Not to get too far off this but a month ago i went to the MN zoo to see their baby farm animal exhibit. They have a mock 1950s style farm setup with all the animals you can imagine and their babies. Anyways they had an exhibit showing the timeline of farming. When I got done looking at it, I couldnt believe how intertwined farming and govt has always been. May also explain why the govt doesnt go after farming as much as it would other industries.
dullard
Elite Member
Specifically what major protectionist change are you asking about?
I'll try NAFTA. In the dozen years before NAFTA started, the CPI (inflation) went up an average of 3.72%/year. In the dozen years after NAFTA started, CPI went up an average of 2.53%/year. Notice how price increases were much less?
What about wages? In that period before NAFTA, wages went up an average of 4.33%/year. After NAFTA? 4.11%/year.
So, removing a bunch of trade barriers hurt wage increases slightly (4.33% - 4.11% = 0.22%). But it also cut inflation drastically (3.72% - 2.53% = 1.19%). We got smaller raises, but the inflation rate was slashed. Net effect is positive. Your turn, show us the data for another major protectionist change. Try posting the numbers of what happened after adding a bunch of tarrifs.
Also, I'd be really interested in knowing about the housing that we imported. :roll:
Fern
Elite Member
Great idea. First we outsource manufacturing, now you propose we outource farming?
When we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves we'll be at huge startegic disadvantage.
Otherwise, there shouldn't be a labor shortage. Over here, due to the late freeze we got no crops. No jobs for the illegals here this year. Construction is down by all reports, that too should free up workers (and the freed up agri workers can't move to that sector either). I'm calling shens on this story. It's pro illegal immigration BS.
Fern
HombrePequeno
Diamond Member
Fvck 'em. They should pay better to attract more workers. Many of them wouldn't even be operating in the first place if it wasn't for our retarded amount of agricultural subsidies.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
Indeed. Even core inflation which excludes stuff like gas and food has only ever risen. When imports create deflationary price pressure, it just allows the federal reserve to inflate the money supply thus destroying any benefit the ordinary person might get from imports from 2nd and 3rd world countries.
Nearly all lumber used in the construction of US houses comes from Canada. So much so that the US decided to ignore NAFTA and implement protectionist policies because the cheaper prices were negativly affecting US companies.
Your wage percentages. Is that the average wage? Or the median wage?
dullard
Elite Member
Ok, real (inflation adjusted) median wage in 2005 dollars. Using inflation adjusted dollars, I can simplify the math.
1984: $18626
1994: $20773 (11.5% gain total in the pre NAFTA decade)
2004: $23990 (15.5% gain total in the post NAFTA decade)
brandonbull
Diamond Member
Ask pet owners how that cheap food stuff worked out for them.
dullard
Elite Member
Ask Jaskalas. "If a global economy means our wages have to go down to equalize and be competitive, then to hell with the foreign goods. Enforce trade laws that don't make us lower our wages." It was his idea that started my comments.
Or, do the same thing in history for any country entering major trade negotiations or adding major trade barriers. You'll soon see a pattern.
Someone in the US will trade with someone in another country IF it benefits that person in the US. Ending trade (or reducing trade) eliminates (or reduces) these possibilities to benefit. If we eliminate this form of having Americans benefit, as a whole the US is worse off. Plain and simple. Yes, Americans who can't compete will need to switch jobs. I'm not denying that. But as a whole, we are better off with the trades. The benefits outweigh the pains of moving inefficient job to new efficient jobs.
The US is roughly neutral in food trades. We export close to the same value of food that we import. Over the last century, we have flopped several times on which is greater (imports or exports). But overall, we are close to being even right now. That means trade of food has very little impact on our ability to feed ourselves or our "strategic" position. Ending a few farmers jobs here won't really impact that picture - we will still be able to grow enough to feed each and every person in the US.
Let a few avacado* growers lose thier jobs. We don't have the right farmland or the right weather to make it profitable here. So let them move on to farming something that we can make profitably (such as our massive corn shortage**). This will NOT be a strategic harm, or even an economic harm to the US.
* Random example of inefficient farming in the US.
** Random example of efficient farming in the US.
brandonbull
Diamond Member
NAFTA has done very little for trade. 90%+ of the trade is not due to NAFTA
That is not the problem at all, they were getting a good wage coming here on work visas, farmers needed pickers, x amount of people who wanted to pick were given work visas, they were in fact doing jobs many Americans did not want to do, at a fair wage.
Now so many have come illegally and have driven that wage so low that many of them no longer want to do it and why should they? I mean they just flock to the next greener pasture like construction until they drive those wages in the toilet putting countless Americans out of jobs while they are at it..
Likewise why should anyone get a work visa anymore when they can just walk over and work under the table for more then what is being paid now?
Because of our open borders and extreme lack of enforcement we have literally millions doing jobs they have absolutely no business taking. We don?t need construction workers; we don?t need hamburger flippers, we don?t need cab drivers etc?
We need to seal the border, kick all these jackasses out, and then let in only what labor workers we need and only for as long as we need period.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
