> Americans don't want these jobs.
They don't want these jobs at the current pay rates. Let's not forget the most important qualifier here.
They don't want these jobs at the current pay rates. Let's not forget the most important qualifier here.
If you're looking for the subset of manual labourers willing to move to remote locations, you're competing with oil companies that really well, and people aren't queuing round the block for those jobs either. Labour intensive food production isn't particularly likely to be able to compete with oil on salary.
Would you work in the field for twice your current pay?
If I had a choice between living by myself and making $36/hour working in a field and getting a roommate and working in a warehouse (or an Amazon delivery driver), guess which one I would choose?
Sure, because the pay or other benefits weren't good enough. There are sometimes other considerations as well, like that some of this work is temporary/seasonal and people want something steady.
> If I had a choice between living by myself and making $36/hour working in a field and getting a roommate and working in a warehouse (or an Amazon delivery driver), guess which one I would choose?
That's a weird question. You could easily keep working in that field and still get a roommate and you'd get to keep even more money.
I am sure I could give up my big house in the burbs and my wife and I could stay with another couple. But do you think I would make that choice?
On another related note, you saw the same thing with school bus drivers after Covid (my wife was one). No amount of money in the world was going to convince many bus drivers who didn’t really need the extra money to risk Covid to drive the bus. Many of them were just doing it for extra money.
Anyone could have more money saved if they found a roommate. But at some point we decide it’s not worth the trade off.
The upside of that 36/hr is many people were able to either take much of the year off or provide lavishly for their families when otherwise their children would have much fewer opportunities.
It's not even a question whether many would take it, it's a certainty.
And the fishing industry is highly subsidized
https://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/sub...
If your point is the industry (fishing) is subsidized, well farming also is highly subsidized.
Besides, Americans are already whining about inflation. Guess what would happen if food labor costs went up 5x?
1) Eliminate subsidies to agriculture (and fishing) gradually over say a decade. Effect: higher food prices
2) Phase out any tariffs or regulation on import of agriculture/fishing over say a decade. Effect: lower food prices
3) All workers should be on equal playing field. What regulation applies to one should apply to another. Let the free market determine rates within these regulatory constraints. Taking special advantage of undocumented immigrants to avoid labor regulations isn't an acceptable option. Regulations and law should apply equally to everyone, if it is to be applied at all.
Wages will rise until either the free market rate for this kind of labor is matched, or the farm in question becomes unprofitable. In the latter case, the farm is not compatible with efficient use of human resources and should adapt or fail. In the former case, workers benefit in the form of rising wages.
When there are subsidies, Americans pay one way or another. You can pay either in the form of increased government revenues (i.e. taxation/inflation/debt) or you can pay at the grocery store. I'm much more in favor of the latter as we don't need to add yet another middleman eating up resources in this equation. Costs should be born directly by those consuming the resource.
American farmers are then less competitive here and abroad.
Yes I know, there are no easy answers.
Then American consumers basically get fed at the expense of the rest of the world. Not ideal for the world, but great for those getting the cheap food. Labor directed in agriculture instead get focused into other industries we have a competitive advantage in.
As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it.
Again, there are no easy answers. Either we subsidize farmers and pay more in taxes or we impose tariffs to level the playing field. Either way, we pay more than we should.
Both of these don't level the playing field, they distort the playing field.
>As soon as the US industry is destroyed, the other countries remove subsidies and prices rise and we can do nothing about it.
Arguably it is subsidies that destroy farming industry, not the reverse. Farming can tolerate a lot more inefficiencies, bad practices, poor resource allocation and unreasonable crop selection when subsidies influence the market. This could be see India for example in the 70s where textile subsidies meant many people were working in sweatshops weaving with hand operated machines instead of maintaining well capitalized fully mechanized looms. Eliminating these subsidies gradually will allow farmers to develop techniques that make them more competitive on the international stage if these other countries "remove subsidies" (which is your prediction).
Yes tariffs (inbound) and subsidies (outbound) both distort the playing field. But no country can unilaterally disarm.