We need the hotel workers and farmers!
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
What a ridiculous thing to say. We're talking about 2.5 million workers. Who make 70% of the food. In a country whose unemployment rate is currently 4.3%.
You really think that if farmers hung out a shingle saying "WANTED: people to pick avocados in the sun for twelve hours a day," millions of Americans would immediately quit their jobs and go dashing out to the countryside to do that instead?
You've got to be kidding.
See, that was actually your argument. Why would food prices "triple" if browns were expelled? Because Americans would go dashing out to the countryside to pick food.
If Americans are never going to do manual labor, why is food price "tripling", lib?
I don't think American citizens would go dashing out to the countryside to pick food. I don't think your average Project Management Specialist is going to be like "Hey, honey, pull the kids out of school! We're moving to Texas so I can work a graveyard slaughterhouse shift!"
I find two kinds of Americans on forums like these: ones who are like "American citizens will totally do that work! Not me personally, I have more skills than that, but some of them!"; and ones who are like "I'd totally do that work!" even though they haven't worked a single day in ten years.
Now, sure, if it were literally a matter of life and death, and the government "strongly encouraged" people out of the cities and onto farms, maybe it could happen. But this isn't some kind of utopian scenario. This is the government flat-out making two million citizens' lives worse than they were.
Answer the question, lib. Why is food price "tripling" if browns are expelled?
Not a "lib." A lib doesn't believe in respecting market forces. I do.
And the answer is pretty simple: supply and demand. That's what sets market price. If you fire 70% of the workforce producing the food, the supply will plummet. If that happens, food prices will skyrocket.
"Triple"? Just a guess, really. It could be much, much worse than that. It could be as bad as having a year or two where food was borderline unavailable at any price. Followed by the scenario I gave you - the forced expulsion of city-dwellers into the agricultural sector.
There's already over 3x that many people doing no work.
Yep. The unemployment rate has always been a complete bullshit number. The employment rate is the one that matters. What percent of native males between the ages of 16 and 65 are employed?
Yeah, and then you dig into who they are. A college professor whose small college closed. A single mom trying to work from home. An electrician who just stormed off after a fight with his asshole boss.
They're not gonna rush off to the countryside to pick almonds. They already have that option and they're not taking it. It's not work that they want.
All your arguments are predicated on thinking we should continue to have the exact same market that was built in illegal labor. We shouldn't. Maybe strawberries become a rare treat. Oh well. The price was being artificially suppressed by criminal activity. Almonds are a shit example because harvesting is extremely mechanized.
"Food prices will triple!" No. Prices of some specific foods will increase dramatically. Some marginally. Markets and habits will rebalance.
The law is supposed to serve people, not the other way around. If we can eat strawberries wherever we want at an affordable price point, that's better than if strawberries are a "rare treat," and the laws should change to reflect that.