DescentBB

Had an interesting talk with a lady farmer in Michigan a little while back that was provocative. She mentioned that the movement of migratory workers has been restricted more recently by the government (not sure which department). As a result she was only able to find enough workers to harvest half of her crop. She said it's becoming a problem, and that we're going to see it reflected in produce prices in the coming years if something doesn't change.

So that got me thinking. Obviously it's a job which requires cheap labor to keep the costs of produce down so that they can make a profit. Her solution was obvious--give her more migrant workers. She said local people would rather not do such a hard job for such little pay, and that was reinforced by my 19-y/o co-worker who had done the work in the past. My first thought was "ahh, maybe we're being fed a political line, while the government is actually hurting our economy--perhaps strategically". People in office can't be ignorant of this. Why would the portion of illegal immigrants that we actually do want (don't we?) working here be restricted? More political BS while blithely doing damage to a real economy?

My second thought was, "well, maybe it's not what she wants, but if we're going to do away with illegal immigration (something I think we ought to do), maybe there is no room for this kind of cheap labor... maybe our nations farmers should find another way to make the harvest of produce feasible." On the other hand, an exception could be made for this type of labor, which may be acceptable, but I wonder if it's the best we could do. On another hand entirely, is it a sign of a bad economy that people in America find this sort of labor beneath them? Hard work is hard work. Maybe we have the economy to blame for the money not being good enough to make a living on...

Thoughts?

(Funny story: She had a push-type brush cutter that she said had been used by a young "spanish" boy to cut grass between rows, and we noted that it had a loop of heavy-duty poly twine hanging off of each of the separated (almost bicycle-like, but pointed in more toward the operator) hand-grips. Probably it had been used to place a bar across for long use, but I told my co-worker afterwards that it had been to secure the spanish boy's wrists, and the only reason it was sitting unused was that he had escaped! )

Thoughts are this, Thorne. Produce especially, and a few other agricultural products, traditionally rely on very cheap labor, in substantial numbers, for short seasons to be a practical endeavor. Thus, migrant labor.....a large number of people willing to work for low wages, over long hours and then move on to the next area for harvest.
There has been, over my lifetime, a sort of evolution of the workforce. When I was young, it was predominantly poor American natives(black and white, although dominated by black people). As time went on, more of those people found they could make as much money, without travelling, working minimum or low-wage jobs. Thus, the immigrants came into the picture. As I've said on this board more than once, despite the goofy assertions that the Obama administration, or Democrats, being totally biased in favor of illegal immigration, the truth is that they HAVE cracked down, as your farming friend indicated. Therefore, there are less people in the available pool. Solutions? Few will appeal to everyone, but the first option is to pay a fair, liveable wage. This will result in higher prices for produce. Second, re-open the floodgates to foreign workers and keep the wage rules loose on agricultural labor. Well, a lot of people seem not to like this. The truth is this: the US economy, both agricultural and otherwise, has ALWAYS depended on successive waves of immigrants willing to work at rock-bottom wages in order to establish themselves in this country. Coal mining, railroad building, gold and silver mining, and clothing factories come to mind along with produce workers. Of course, one has to view slavery in the same light for cotton and tobacco, although those folks didn't show up here willingly. That is our nation's history, and the source of 300 years of economic growth. Whether that continues in the 21st century, is anyone's guess.

Seem like good points. One thing you couldn't exclude from the "pay a living wage" scenario would be imposing taxes on food imports in order to allow domestic produce to be competitive.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Seem like good points. One thing you couldn't exclude from the "pay a living wage" scenario would be imposing taxes on food imports in order to allow domestic produce to be competitive.

very true.....in fact, that would have to be a given, if we wish to maintain domestically grown produce.

Your both forgetting one other source of labor and that is the pool of people who are hale and healthy that collect welfare as a way of life. Let welfare recipients work outside in the sunshine and fresh air and perhaps it will do them some good. Before you go pooh poohing the idea, I just read recently of talk requiring welfare people to work. What better place than on a farm.

woodchip wrote:Your both forgetting one other source of labor and that is the pool of people who are hale and healthy that collect welfare as a way of life. Let welfare recipients work outside in the sunshine and fresh air and perhaps it will do them some good. Before you go pooh poohing the idea, I just read recently of talk requiring welfare people to work. What better place than on a farm.

and, bring back the workhouses and child labor, too, right? Geez, Woody, you are so wrapped up in fantasy-land that you actually think there is a pool of able-bodied welfare recipients(that only lasts a few years, remember?) sufficient to replace roughly 1 million field-hands!!

for those of you who might not be aware(although likely none of you are as clueless as our pal Woody), field-work in produce agriculture is serious backbreaking labor, with long hours, physical dangers and for migrants(much of the labor pool), requires moving from locale to locale constantly, which precludes any sort of family stability in which to properly raise children.

To be honest the same thought had crossed my mind. I think that welfare could be a program that is largely self-sustaining. Slick, I think the labor force is not as bleak as you make it out to be, and as far as being a poor environment to raise children... the street is worse. The truth is I would like to see a more effective, self-sustaining welfare program with 3-4 days per week of work, and 1-2 of training, but I'm not so sure there is anyone intelligent enough in government to pull it off. It would have to be run by someone who's only motivation is to graduate people from the program with honors, and all profits not allocated by a separate entity to improving the program would be distributed to tax payers.

callmeslick wrote:for those of you who might not be aware(although likely none of you are as clueless as our pal Woody), field-work in produce agriculture is serious backbreaking labor, with long hours, physical dangers and for migrants(much of the labor pool), requires moving from locale to locale constantly, which precludes any sort of family stability in which to properly raise children.

Yeah I'm clueless slick. At age 11 I started working the fields for a local corner produce seller. Picked green beans, cukes, melons, corn, tomatoes. Did that for 3 or 4 summers. Also in high school worked for a local orchard picking apples. So you want to tell me again what I don't know? Do you know what it's like first hand or only from what you read on some liberal whine blog.

ok, Woody, so there is no excuse for you thinking that a program, whose participants are around 85% women with children(Welfare) can provide migrant farm labor, right?

oops, I was a bit off: according to these recent statistics, 90% of recipients of cash assistance are single women. The vast majority have children.
http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2 ... -benefits/


now, can you explain again, Woody, how this pool of labor translates into migrant farm labor?

Maybe we could make a requirement for welfare that these women disclose the names of the fathers, then we could round them up and send them to pick crops…

Wow, after reading that link, all I can say is it seems most Americans failed math.

Spidey wrote:Maybe we could make a requirement for welfare that these women disclose the names of the fathers, then we could round them up and send them to pick crops…

Talk about killing two birds with one stone! I like it!

callmeslick wrote:for those of you who might not be aware(although likely none of you are as clueless as our pal Woody), field-work in produce agriculture is serious backbreaking labor, with long hours, physical dangers and for migrants(much of the labor pool), requires moving from locale to locale constantly, which precludes any sort of family stability in which to properly raise children.

Absolutely. Been there, done that. Not something I'd recommend unless the money was badly needed.

callmeslick wrote:ok, Woody, so there is no excuse for you thinking that a program, whose participants are around 85% women with children(Welfare) can provide migrant farm labor, right?

So whats the problem here?

1) That they are women and thus aren't as good as men doing the labor?

2) That they have children and thus need to stay home to take care of them?

The first problem is not a problem. I suspect if the illegal migrant women can do the work, then so can the welfare women.
The second problem is not a problem and as you put it, a slap in the face of all the single mothers who do work. How do working women take care of their children while they work?

So what you are trying to portray is a reverse war on women. Didn't the liberals just get done saying with free contraceptives women are now free to do as they chose? So why are all these welfare women tied down to trying to take care of their children when they shouldn't be having children in the first place and have plentiful mean to prevent pregnancies? In short slick it sounds like you are trying to promote dependency on the govt with enough money and subsidies given out to get by on. All the while keeping them in those golden chains I talked about in another thread just so there is a ready supply of good little democratic voters.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:for those of you who might not be aware(although likely none of you are as clueless as our pal Woody), field-work in produce agriculture is serious backbreaking labor, with long hours, physical dangers and for migrants(much of the labor pool), requires moving from locale to locale constantly, which precludes any sort of family stability in which to properly raise children.

Absolutely. Been there, done that. Not something I'd recommend unless the money was badly needed.

Ummm Ferny, they are already receiving welfare benefits. And welfare recipients wouldn't only be required to work on farms.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:ok, Woody, so there is no excuse for you thinking that a program, whose participants are around 85% women with children(Welfare) can provide migrant farm labor, right?

So whats the problem here?

1) That they are women and thus aren't as good as men doing the labor?

2) That they have children and thus need to stay home to take care of them?

both, to some extent, but mostly the reality that MIGRANT labor requires constant MIGRATION(hence the name). Therefore under the oh-so-charitable WoodyWorld plan, you would create a pool of a few million kids without ANY permanent roots, difficult access to education and even healthcare on a consistent basis(remember, you have to set up appointments with doctors all over again every time you move). That is a pure recipe for a social nightmare.

Slick, stop pointing out the obvious. A lot of people on this board are accustomed to receiving twisted information. Maybe you can distort your posts a little bit and help out the reader?

Vision, you really need to stop following slick so... closely.

Well with just a little creative leadership, this problem could be solved.

What we could have is a “farm corps” of sorts….

The government and private groups could set up the following….

Farm Corps (I know the name is taken) where…

1. Young people are recruited to do the farm labor, anyone out of school, or anyone who has dropped out over the age of 16 would be eligible. Age limit could be set at 50 or so.
2. The pay would be a little more than what is paid now.
3. The workers would receive all room, board, transportation, food, health care, etc.
4. The workers would also receive primary education, especially to confirm to the next item. (those without high school graduation…GED equivalent…others optional courses) Mandatory! (GED)
5. The workers would at the end of their service receive a scholarship to college and a cash bonus.
6. The service term could be 4 years or so, longer if the worker wanted.

I think the idea here is self explanatory, and no I haven’t worked out every detail, so I’m sure plenty more planning and or changes would have to be made. (I believe the basic concept is sound)

And yes! I’m sure it would cause produce to be a little more expensive, but any solution to this problem would have to do the same thing…unless we wanted to use prisoners or something dumb like that. I have no problem with paying a little more for food, if it meant lower unemployment amongst the young, but then I’m also stupid enough to believe the consumer should support the middle class jobs that we are losing.

Now I’m also sure many liberals would be against this kind of thing, because it “might” put a dent into the demographic changes they are drooling over.

And I’m also sure the right would find problems with it as well.

My basic point here is…where the hell is the leadership we used to get from presidents like TR and others? If an idiot like me can solve problems…where is the output from the people we pay to do this kind of thing? (and I’m sure there are also plenty of other solutions)


Now, I sit back and wait for all of the excuses.

it's a fine idea, Spidey......of course, if we could do that much, you wouldn't even need to recruit a force. I suspect you could find enough takers. Therein lies the problem.....most farmers and rural districts do not have the excess resources to fund the extra pay, the educational system or much of anything else in your plan. And, at least half of Congress wouldn't consider it,because it requires spending by the government. As I said, though, your plan is very sound.

Doesn't our existing welfare system require spending by the government?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Doesn't our existing welfare system require spending by the government?

some, but a pittance(and, I mean a real pittance) compared to the costs of Spidey's plan. We pay a good deal for healthcare and food assistance, but actually don't spend much on pure cash assistance to non-disabled people.

Well, I was watching this program the other day, they had a few farmers on there that were literally scared to death that their crops weren’t going to be harvested, mostly because these new immigration laws passed by the border states had the illegals in hiding.

Combine that with turning back migrants at the border, and you have a real crisis in the making. Well we will see what happens when these crops start dying on the vine, farmers cut back plantings and selling their land.

Then it will be an emergency, and the government will be forced to act, and lots of stupid stuff will result.

I’m not going to try to defend my particular idea, but I know it won’t be as costly as doing nothing.

woodchip wrote:Ummm Ferny, they are already receiving welfare benefits. And welfare recipients wouldn't only be required to work on farms.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact that day labour in the field is indeed backbreaking work. Next time, read the damn message before you quote it.

Spidey wrote:.

Then it will be an emergency, and the government will be forced to act, and lots of stupid stuff will result.

.

if I didn't like my current sig, this line would be in contention!!
And, don't get me wrong, I think your approach is a good one.....it's just the pragmatist in me that doesn't see it getting to reality.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Ummm Ferny, they are already receiving welfare benefits. And welfare recipients wouldn't only be required to work on farms.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the fact that day labour in the field is indeed backbreaking work. Next time, read the damn message before you quote it.

I replied to:
" Not something I'd recommend unless the money was badly needed."

No slick, I have no delusions of getting “my” plan enacted, my point was that “NO” plan will be enacted.

What this country needs is someone who is balanced and knowledgeable about what has been done and what has or hasn't worked (pragmatic in their understanding), but audacious enough to not allow that to speak to the possibility or necessity of pursuing a radical plan to make it work. I can tell you from where I'm sitting that experience and knowledge is not enough if it can't step up and put some blood and sweat into defying failure or even mediocrity. I'm surrounded by experienced, knowledgeable people who use it as an excuse to sit on their ass and coast, never expecting any more than what has been.

EDIT: At the same time, patience is a part of all progress, and you have to be experienced enough to know that sometimes things take a certain amount of time. As long as progress is being made... progress has been made.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:What this country needs is someone who is balanced and knowledgeable about what has been done and what has or hasn't worked (pragmatic in their understanding), but audacious enough to not allow that to speak to the possibility or necessity of pursuing a radical plan to make it work.

pretty much my thinking when, 7 years or so ago, I met and talked with a young fellow named Obama, and chose to support him with my time and finances. Imagine my dismay when, essentially upon taking office, one party basically failed to cooperate with this process altogether and his own party's left wing sniped at him constantly.

EDIT: At the same time, patience is a part of all progress, and you have to be experienced enough to know that sometimes things take a certain amount of time. As long as progress is being made... progress has been made.

see above, and realize that for nearly 6 years, this is EXACTLY what Obama has been trying to say to the nation.

I guess we must have very different things in mind when we come across those words. I probably should have mentioned that none of that works without a sound moral base, and an unshakable sense of responsibility. That excludes the man who says doesn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby for having sex out of wedlock, for instance.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I guess we must have very different things in mind when we come across those words. I probably should have mentioned that none of that works without a sound moral base, and an unshakable sense of responsibility. That excludes the man who says doesn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby for having sex out of wedlock, for instance.

you see, I think it does apply to the man who stopped to play with little kids in a Church rec-room, because he was lonely for his family while out on a speaking tour. I think it applies to a man who has for a decade preached personal responsibility as a missing component in the advancement of Black Americans. I think it applies to the man who was able to grasp the complex relationship of education, infrastructure and economic reform as the basis that will get the nation to stay strong in the long run. Taking a quote out of context isn't fair in judging the true stature of Obama's morality, decency and intelligence. Sadly, those that do such cherry-picking are among those holding back true progress, such as you bemoaned above.

Your problem is you don't understand what it means to have a sound moral base. The truth is Obama may be great in a lot of ways, but he lacks the moral base to properly deal with a number of subjects, and teen pregnancy is one of them. I'm not misunderstanding what he means when he says "punished with a baby". He's alluding to the effect of entering into child-raising without the proper life foundation for yourself, or to be ready as a parent, a provider, and a fully seasoned and experienced adult. The truth is it's bad for the parent and the child... BUT... Raising a child cannot be construed as a punishment by anyone with a sound mind. It is inflicted by no one, without reason. It can only be seen as a responsibility irresponsibly or foolishly entered into. Once the child has been brought into this world it does not matter how it got here--it is a life, and a responsibility to be undertaken cheerfully, courageously, dutifully, and with whatever ability is at hand. What he said is very wrong. It shows me that he does not even have what it takes to be a responsible parent, if we're going to hold out some high standards here. Since most people do not have what it takes to raise children that are as responsible or more responsible than themselves (just got done listening to some fool talking about not believing in spanking his children, and picking his battles with his 6-year-old son), I can't imagine I'll ever have a receptive audience.


You can accuse me of cherry-picking if you want, but it's simply one of the negative things about Obama's character that most stands out to me, and in my opinion it's such an important subject that it is a big deal. To be fair to the man, it's difficult to accept any positive traits which might be perceived coming from anyone who is in front of a camera so much, but even those should show through in what he says. However I have always found most of the positives coming from his to be shallow and unsubstantial.

I think he's a good manager, I think he's very self-controlled. He's probably a great father in a lot of ways, by most standards.

I think he's very good at speaking about things in a very... truth/lie neutral sort of way. He's obviously practiced at speaking in such a way that he's not necessarily outright lying, but he's not being honest enough to allow the truth of the matter to hurt him. It turns communication into some kind of 6-dof battle of wits, where what you're saying is the shield, and you must keep it between the truth and your adversary without denying the existence of the truth (because now you've "lied", and that can be used against you). I think people accept the use of this kind of dishonestly because none of them communicate well enough to use straight-forward tactics to keep people from trying to make the truth more damning than it is, and they use the fact that it's in the hostile arena of politics as an excuse. If the truth hurts me maybe you've got a point... but if the truth hurts me more than it justly should maybe I need to call you out on it. In my life I've met people who are more straightforward than I am, and I'm ashamed. Anyway, this also betrays an unsound or undeveloped moral base. If you want someone in Washington who is any good, they must be the exception to this rule. That's one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of Ron Paul. I have rarely seen him as anything other than straight-forward. This truth is this could be one of the real advantages of age in a candidate--the experience to not only know to deal truthfully, but how to deal truthfully without being taken advantage of (I'm sure the TV-addled American public will be wishing for younger and younger candidates as time goes by--more like themselves and less like their dad/grandpa).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your problem is you don't understand what it means to have a sound moral base.

really? That is about as arrogant and assumptive a statement as I can imagine. I know, and further put into practice, a sound moral base and have done so for a long time.

callmeslick wrote:That is about as arrogant and assumptive a statement as I can imagine.

Flattery will get you nowhere. (where's a tears-of-joy-welling-up smiley when you need one? )

...Well, then you should understand you cannot have a "sound" moral based when it has so many gaping holes in it... it precludes the "sound" part. Also immoral notions are in danger of even precluding the "moral" part.

no, it only has 'holes' when viewed by someone with a narrow and arbitrary definition of 'moral'. To me, for instance, a moral person doesn't take out of context words and then try to paint another human being as somehow lacking. In fact, in my definition of moral, it isn't my place to judge the morals of my fellow man with any regularity.

or, Thorne, to put it another way: Judge not, lest......ah, nevermind, that sort of thinking won't wash with your moral code.

"You're immoral!" I love it. Don't try to pull that "out of context" BS, I already dealt with that 2 replies ago. And you know very well my definition of morality is not arbitrary, as I have gone to lengths to demonstrate, again, 2 replies ago. If a man cannot judge proximity to morality, then how may it be considered a standard at all? Anyone would think I wasn't judging things that Obama has spoken with his own mouth. I have rarely met anyone who's failure to judge the actions of another was not self-serving or cowardly in origin.

I rest my case. Judge not others, lest you yourself be judged.

A common cop-out. You'd think it was the 11th commandment... Your case, I'm afraid, is shallow. Why do people need salvation if all that is required to escape judgement is not to judge? Also the bible says in another place "do not judge by the seeing of the eye, or the hearing of the ear, but judge righteous judgements". And in another that we will be justified or condemned by our works (obviously speaking of whether or not we have judged others [/facetious]). But since you don't believe in God, why are you waving that around? Put it down before you hurt yourself.

I'm not interesting in judging/condemning Obama, but I judge that it is immoral to lie, and to say that a baby kept alive is a punishment on a poor unprepared teen, not a responsibility and a solemn duty which must be shouldered, and thus I judge that Obama's moral base is clearly wanting.