Sweet Potatoes, food, and why the hell don't farm laborers earn more?

R

redivider

Well-Known Member
I've heard tons. I mean TONS of people complain about farm laborers being immigrants. How without immigrants we wouldn't be able to have food. How the food would just ROT IN THE FIELDS!

So let's do some practical numbers - because I think we've all been tricked into believing that without extremely cheap labor costs for what is essentially the most important resource we have, food, we would have absolutely NO CHOICE, but to let food rot in the fields....

So I'll use the sweet potato farmer as an example. I heard this guy say 'you want to stop immigrants quit eatin'

So this guy has 200 acres of sweet potato. He hires 20 workers to do the job and pays them 100 bucks per day each - for 13 hours of back breaking sweet potato picking.

Harvest lasts about 20-25 days. International averages for Sweet Potato harvests are standing at 13 tonnes per acre. That's a cool 28,600 lbs per acre. This comes from some international federation of potato farmers or some shit. Average is 13 tonnes per acre, highest is in Senegal with 39 tonnes per acre. The US would sit on the higher end of the curve, but for the sake of this example I'm leaving the yields at average.

So if you got 20 guys, working 20 days, for 100 bucks per day. That comes out to 40.000 in labor. If you got 200 acres, and that yields approx 28600 (I believe you can yield more in the USA because of more productive genetic pools and better technology, but I'll leave it at the average) - YOu get a cool 5.720.000 lbs of sweet potatoes. You split up the labor costs and it comes out to about 0.006 per LB. That's right. The labor cost comes out to less than 1 cent per pound of sweet potato.

So when people think that we'd just be doubling the amount we pay for food for increasing labor costs in the food picking business- let's see how true that is for our example.

You got 20 guys working 20 days for 250 bucks per day. That's a job I'd do, 5000 in 20 days - I know plenty of people who would do it at least once to get out of a pinch. The price of labor for that particular harvest (all other things remaining equal) comes out to 100.000 in labor, or around 0.0174 per LB. So the overall labor portion of the costs indeed doubles - but with the yields you get from industrial farming, the cost per pound for labor is still about 1 cent per lb.

So why are the extremely low wages in industrial food picking still a thing? Because greedy agro-business and the politicians who represent them don't want you to know that they can pay a living wage, that most americans would probably support or not even really notice a 1-2 cent per LB increase in their food costs if it means driving a few million farm workers out of poverty.... they don't want you to know because the way farm subsidies are designed it is better to have food rot in the fields due to 'lack of workers', than to actually raise the wage and have workers flood the fields and not let a single potato rot.... this keeps a nice status quo - cheap labor for the farmers, an excuse to not raise the wage if no workers show up and food rots, and the agrobusiness pumps the politicians coffers with money so they get elected and re-elected.

It's a fucking racket is what it is....

what do you guys think?
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
Sounds good.

Until you think of accommodation costs, sanitation, feeding, administration, taxation, and so on.

I mean, you don't actually think that the only cost of temporary migrant labour is how much you pay them, do you?
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
Sounds good.

Until you think of accommodation costs, sanitation, feeding, administration, taxation, and so on.

I mean, you don't actually think that the only cost of temporary migrant labour is how much you pay them, do you?
Click to expand...
You actually think illegal labor patrons pay any sort of taxes on the wages paid>?

And it is safe to assume that accomodation, sanitation (Whatever that means I am sure none of these field workers get any sort of health benefit), food, administration etc - all of those remain exactly the same if you hire 200 workers at 10 dollars per day or at 1000 dollars perday.

I am talking about the portion of food costs attributable to wages. industrial farming yields water down the wages paid during harvest to miniscule levels.

I'm concerned with the notion that higher wage costs for laborers automatically doubles or triples food prices. hundreds of comments about it on social media.

I don't think it's true. Not for every single product we consume, and this sweet potato example pretty much shows it.
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
The same reason if you work at the local fast food or Walmart,Amazon or you name it. These companies push their employees to get on food stamps and government assistance so they can survive on the low wages they pay. Greedy and lazy corporations love corporate welfare.
 
Last edited:
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
You actually think illegal labor patrons pay any sort of taxes on the wages paid>?

And it is safe to assume that accomodation, sanitation (Whatever that means I am sure none of these field workers get any sort of health benefit), food, administration etc - all of those remain exactly the same if you hire 200 workers at 10 dollars per day or at 1000 dollars perday.

I am talking about the portion of food costs attributable to wages. industrial farming yields water down the wages paid during harvest to miniscule levels.

I'm concerned with the notion that higher wage costs for laborers automatically doubles or triples food prices. hundreds of comments about it on social media.

I don't think it's true. Not for every single product we consume, and this sweet potato example pretty much shows it.
Click to expand...
But since you are proposing NOT having the illegal workers by paying a more "realistic" wage, then taxes, accommodation, etc, do come into play as do minimum standards. That costs money, and that's also before all the other costs involved in farming.

You are taking one small aspect and putting it completely out of the concept of what is realistic, and that shows a complete lack of understanding of the matter, up there with those idiots who think that a job that entails you asking "do you want fries with that" should attract the same wage as a skilled technician.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
But since you are proposing NOT having the illegal workers by paying a more "realistic" wage, then taxes, accommodation, etc, do come into play as do minimum standards. That costs money, and that's also before all the other costs involved in farming.

You are taking one small aspect and putting it completely out of the concept of what is realistic, and that shows a complete lack of understanding of the matter, up there with those idiots who think that a job that entails you asking "do you want fries with that" should attract the same wage as a skilled technician.
Click to expand...
seems like you've never worked a contract job in your life. Contract labor does not incurr in payroll taxes the same way hourly full time work does. SO why the hell are you still going on about increase in taxes? Why is it that all of a sudden accomodation costs that are already accounted for and don't change - why do those need to be taken into effect? Why is it that all the other costs, which remain constant under this analisys - why do I have to take those into account?

I don't. You know why, because in incremental analysis you take into account the numbers that you know for certain will change.

Payroll taxes don't increase because contract labor doesn't incur payroll taxes for employers. So if you increase the wage offering for contract work the only thing that changes is the rate paid to the contract worker.

Other costs of farming don't change because you are only increasing the wage offering of harvest workers. Everything else remains constant.

Minimun standards shouldn't increase because minimum safety and work standards are the law, regardless of the legality or status of the employee in the workplace. That means you need to know and implement minimum standards in your workplace regardless if you hire contract, temp, full time, part-time or illegal employees. Not doing it in the first place is flaunting the law just because illegal workers are less likely to report workplace violations.

Since you have no idea how an incremental study works, I did one for you. That's how it works.

Your complete lack of understanding how to do a budget analisys disqualifies you from holdilng any sort of position where a choice you make, could affect the well being and livelyhood of others. You would make a horrible boss because using your reasoning - no decision can ever be made and no topic can ever be analyzed because of 'all the other factors' that are hard to quantify.
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
seems like you've never worked a contract job in your life. Contract labor does not incurr in payroll taxes the same way hourly full time work does. SO why the hell are you still going on about increase in taxes? Why is it that all of a sudden accomodation costs that are already accounted for and don't change - why do those need to be taken into effect? Why is it that all the other costs, which remain constant under this analisys - why do I have to take those into account?

I don't. You know why, because in incremental analysis you take into account the numbers that you know for certain will change.

Payroll taxes don't increase because contract labor doesn't incur payroll taxes for employers. So if you increase the wage offering for contract work the only thing that changes is the rate paid to the contract worker.

Other costs of farming don't change because you are only increasing the wage offering of harvest workers. Everything else remains constant.

Minimun standards shouldn't increase because minimum safety and work standards are the law, regardless of the legality or status of the employee in the workplace. That means you need to know and implement minimum standards in your workplace regardless if you hire contract, temp, full time, part-time or illegal employees. Not doing it in the first place is flaunting the law just because illegal workers are less likely to report workplace violations.

Since you have no idea how an incremental study works, I did one for you. That's how it works.

Your complete lack of understanding how to do a budget analisys disqualifies you from holdilng any sort of position where a choice you make, could affect the well being and livelyhood of others. You would make a horrible boss because using your reasoning - no decision can ever be made and no topic can ever be analyzed because of 'all the other factors' that are hard to quantify.
Click to expand...
There is only one person here with no understanding, and your first sentence confirmed that in spades.

Begone, fool.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
757growin said:
Who took care of those sweet potatoes the months they grew and who planted them. Seems like some labor is not being counted. Property taxes, mortgages, loans for equipment, utilities?
Click to expand...
Those aren't taken into account in incremental analisys because those remain constant. Just because you choose to pay the harvest workers more in labor, doesn't mean the other costs change.
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
thank you for refuting my claim with evidence-based, logical reasoning. there's only one fool in here and we all know who that is.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's the one who opened a reply with a pathetic attempt at an insult to try and make himself feel superior.

You know fuck all and will learn even less in the time you have left on the planet.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
there's a lot of overhead in farming, you have to buy the seed, the fertilizer, the pesticides, pay for water to irrigate, pay for fuel to run your equipment, you have to maintain the equipment, and the buildings. you have to pay people to help you....there are property taxes to pay every year.......and on top of that, you have to get up with the sun every fucking day, and work your ass off.
i don't think farming is quite the scam you make it out to be
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
You actually think illegal labor patrons pay any sort of taxes on the wages paid>?

And it is safe to assume that accomodation, sanitation (Whatever that means I am sure none of these field workers get any sort of health benefit), food, administration etc - all of those remain exactly the same if you hire 200 workers at 10 dollars per day or at 1000 dollars perday.

I am talking about the portion of food costs attributable to wages. industrial farming yields water down the wages paid during harvest to miniscule levels.

I'm concerned with the notion that higher wage costs for laborers automatically doubles or triples food prices. hundreds of comments about it on social media.

I don't think it's true. Not for every single product we consume, and this sweet potato example pretty much shows it.
Click to expand...
Those shitheads want it both ways. Basically what they are fighting for is the status quo of undocumented immigrant labor willing to work for those low wages. You are right in that the argument isn't over the cost of food but how much of the profit should go to the people who do the work.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
there's a lot of overhead in farming, you have to buy the seed, the fertilizer, the pesticides, pay for water to irrigate, pay for fuel to run your equipment, you have to maintain the equipment, and the buildings. you have to pay people to help you....there are property taxes to pay every year.......and on top of that, you have to get up with the sun every fucking day, and work your ass off.
i don't think farming is quite the scam you make it out to be
Click to expand...
Are you talking about small farmers or the very well heeled and coddled big farmers and corporations that own most of the acreage?
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
How would the numbers change if the crop were marijuanas?
Click to expand...
Roger A. Shrubber said:
there's a lot of overhead in farming, you have to buy the seed, the fertilizer, the pesticides, pay for water to irrigate, pay for fuel to run your equipment, you have to maintain the equipment, and the buildings. you have to pay people to help you....there are property taxes to pay every year.......and on top of that, you have to get up with the sun every fucking day, and work your ass off.
i don't think farming is quite the scam you make it out to be
Click to expand...
But those overhead costs don't change if you pay the people picking more money.

That's the thing. Everybody assumes that the largest part of food costs is the cost of picking, and if sweet potatoes are any indication only 1-2 cents of the whole cost of the food comes from the picking part. The rest is the other overhead costs.....

Which is perfectly fine. but if you increase just the cost of labor for picking - I don't think food costs would skyrocket the way some 'analysts' would want you to believe.

a solution to the supposed immigration 'problem' would be to flood the labor pool for food picking with native workers by paying higher wages. That would provide honest workers a decent wage while not skyrocketing the price of food, yes we would see an increase. But the whole 25 dollar avocado thing is a bunch of bullshit.....

I believe there are alterior, nefarious motives behind the fact more farmers don't sign on to this....
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
Sounds good.

Until you think of accommodation costs, sanitation, feeding, administration, taxation, and so on.

I mean, you don't actually think that the only cost of temporary migrant labour is how much you pay them, do you?
Click to expand...
Whites are by far the biggest burden on our system, ukip guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top