Farmer on NPR said he couldn't find an American who would pick fruit...

[Slyhunter]

It really requires just a few simple steps:

1. Pay the full "living wage" and bennies the liberals are whining for. The ways they so fervently believe will attract American pickers - but won't.

2. Price the fruit according to production cost (including labour and bennies) to wholesalers. If wholesalers won't pay it? Let it rot on the trees and lay off the pickers.

3. Ditto if the wholesalers will pay the price and consumers won't. Let it rot on the supermarket shelves until the stores and wholesalers wise up then let it rot on the trees. Lay off the pickers.

4. American liberals take the opportunity to invest in Mexican fruit growers to expand their production and demand zero import duties since the fruit is not available in The U.S.

5. Former orchards are stripped to bare soil to make way for low cost (read "free") housing for indigent Americans who wouldn't pick fruit.

End result, consumers still get economically priced fruit, Mexican workers get Mexican wages and many go home to where the jobs are. Of course Mexican workers who used to work and pay tax in American won't be paying tax here anymore, so Americans will need to pick up the slack.

See how simple it is!

Raise tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage to create an even playing field.

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Someone should try and organize a week without immigrants legal or illegal.

I guarantee you that the economy will collapse to its knees, not to mention sanitary crisis, elderly and the sick dying in their homes, shortage of food, services and in every aspect of life will be interrupted.

Right.......the entire country will just collapse without them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It really requires just a few simple steps:

1. Pay the full "living wage" and bennies the liberals are whining for. The ways they so fervently believe will attract American pickers - but won't.

2. Price the fruit according to production cost (including labour and bennies) to wholesalers. If wholesalers won't pay it? Let it rot on the trees and lay off the pickers.

3. Ditto if the wholesalers will pay the price and consumers won't. Let it rot on the supermarket shelves until the stores and wholesalers wise up then let it rot on the trees. Lay off the pickers.

4. American liberals take the opportunity to invest in Mexican fruit growers to expand their production and demand zero import duties since the fruit is not available in The U.S.

5. Former orchards are stripped to bare soil to make way for low cost (read "free") housing for indigent Americans who wouldn't pick fruit.

End result, consumers still get economically priced fruit, Mexican workers get Mexican wages and many go home to where the jobs are. Of course Mexican workers who used to work and pay tax in American won't be paying tax here anymore, so Americans will need to pick up the slack.

See how simple it is!

Raise tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage to create an even playing field.

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

 

[initforme]

As Ray has indicated we would all be willing to pay higher prices as long as Americans are being paid a good wage to do the work.

 

[Slyhunter]

It really requires just a few simple steps:

1. Pay the full "living wage" and bennies the liberals are whining for. The ways they so fervently believe will attract American pickers - but won't.

2. Price the fruit according to production cost (including labour and bennies) to wholesalers. If wholesalers won't pay it? Let it rot on the trees and lay off the pickers.

3. Ditto if the wholesalers will pay the price and consumers won't. Let it rot on the supermarket shelves until the stores and wholesalers wise up then let it rot on the trees. Lay off the pickers.

4. American liberals take the opportunity to invest in Mexican fruit growers to expand their production and demand zero import duties since the fruit is not available in The U.S.

5. Former orchards are stripped to bare soil to make way for low cost (read "free") housing for indigent Americans who wouldn't pick fruit.

End result, consumers still get economically priced fruit, Mexican workers get Mexican wages and many go home to where the jobs are. Of course Mexican workers who used to work and pay tax in American won't be paying tax here anymore, so Americans will need to pick up the slack.

See how simple it is!

Raise tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage to create an even playing field.

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It really requires just a few simple steps:

1. Pay the full "living wage" and bennies the liberals are whining for. The ways they so fervently believe will attract American pickers - but won't.

2. Price the fruit according to production cost (including labour and bennies) to wholesalers. If wholesalers won't pay it? Let it rot on the trees and lay off the pickers.

3. Ditto if the wholesalers will pay the price and consumers won't. Let it rot on the supermarket shelves until the stores and wholesalers wise up then let it rot on the trees. Lay off the pickers.

4. American liberals take the opportunity to invest in Mexican fruit growers to expand their production and demand zero import duties since the fruit is not available in The U.S.

5. Former orchards are stripped to bare soil to make way for low cost (read "free") housing for indigent Americans who wouldn't pick fruit.

End result, consumers still get economically priced fruit, Mexican workers get Mexican wages and many go home to where the jobs are. Of course Mexican workers who used to work and pay tax in American won't be paying tax here anymore, so Americans will need to pick up the slack.

See how simple it is!

Raise tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage to create an even playing field.

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

 

[Slyhunter]

Raise tariffs on those countries that don't pay an American living wage to create an even playing field.

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

That's just dirty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then those countries put a tariff on our products and hurt our exported goods.

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

That's just dirty.

Maybe, but it's also reality. It's a philosophy that liberals hate the most called Action/ Reaction.

If you and I decided to meet at a bar one night, and I extend my hand to shake yours, you will respond accordingly in most cases. This is action/ reaction. A positive action usually results in a positive reaction.

But if we met and I pushed you into the wall instead, it's likely you'll push me back even harder. A negative action which caused a negative reaction.

It's just nature is all. But the reason liberals hate it is because they try to convince their followers that if they take a negative action, it will cause a positive reaction. Most of their followers believe them too in spite of it's failed history.

GW did try to do good for America. He tried to make a positive action in the US, but knew it would be a negative action with our trading partners. All is fair in love and war I guess.

 

[Slyhunter]

When it's more expensive here to buy imported goods it becomes smarter to make it here, paying Americans living wages, and not paying the tariffs. Yes they'll be more expensive. But Americans making living wages will be able to afford them.

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

That's just dirty.

Maybe, but it's also reality. It's a philosophy that liberals hate the most called Action/ Reaction.

If you and I decided to meet at a bar one night, and I extend my hand to shake yours, you will respond accordingly in most cases. This is action/ reaction. A positive action usually results in a positive reaction.

But if we met and I pushed you into the wall instead, it's likely you'll push me back even harder. A negative action which caused a negative reaction.

It's just nature is all. But the reason liberals hate it is because they try to convince their followers that if they take a negative action, it will cause a positive reaction. Most of their followers believe them too in spite of it's failed history.

GW did try to do good for America. He tried to make a positive action in the US, but knew it would be a negative action with our trading partners. All is fair in love and war I guess.

The reality is we can't compete with countries who don't care about their slaves./citizens who pay them barely enough to survive unless we become like them. Or we stop importing from them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Too bad it's never worked. Ask George Bush when he tried to use tariffs on imported steel.

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

That's just dirty.

Maybe, but it's also reality. It's a philosophy that liberals hate the most called Action/ Reaction.

If you and I decided to meet at a bar one night, and I extend my hand to shake yours, you will respond accordingly in most cases. This is action/ reaction. A positive action usually results in a positive reaction.

But if we met and I pushed you into the wall instead, it's likely you'll push me back even harder. A negative action which caused a negative reaction.

It's just nature is all. But the reason liberals hate it is because they try to convince their followers that if they take a negative action, it will cause a positive reaction. Most of their followers believe them too in spite of it's failed history.

GW did try to do good for America. He tried to make a positive action in the US, but knew it would be a negative action with our trading partners. All is fair in love and war I guess.

The reality is we can't compete with countries who don't care about their slaves./citizens who pay them barely enough to survive unless we become like them. Or we stop importing from them.

That's true, but ask yourself: is that political policy or in the hands of regular Americans?

If you ask me, I say it's the American consumer that caused a lot of our problems. When we shop, we shop to save the most money that we can while being able to obtain the products we really want. We don't care where our products are made, how much automation they use, how much they pay their workers. Just get me my products as cheaply as possible. It's why Walmart is number one and has been for many years.

Until our attitude about buying goods changes, no American policy can have any real impact. If I have to pay three or four bucks for a head of lettuce that was produced and processed by Americans only, I'm willing to spend the money. But unfortunately, I'm not like most American consumers.

 

[Slyhunter]

See you have to be smart about it. We have Americans building stuff with cheap steal making American wages. Should've left steel alone. We should tariff based on what will help get more Americans jobs. Not carte blanche just because we can.

But like I said, GW tried to do just that and it was a complete disaster:

International response[edit]
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.

On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[2] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[3] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[4]

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

That's just dirty.

Maybe, but it's also reality. It's a philosophy that liberals hate the most called Action/ Reaction.

If you and I decided to meet at a bar one night, and I extend my hand to shake yours, you will respond accordingly in most cases. This is action/ reaction. A positive action usually results in a positive reaction.

But if we met and I pushed you into the wall instead, it's likely you'll push me back even harder. A negative action which caused a negative reaction.

It's just nature is all. But the reason liberals hate it is because they try to convince their followers that if they take a negative action, it will cause a positive reaction. Most of their followers believe them too in spite of it's failed history.

GW did try to do good for America. He tried to make a positive action in the US, but knew it would be a negative action with our trading partners. All is fair in love and war I guess.

The reality is we can't compete with countries who don't care about their slaves./citizens who pay them barely enough to survive unless we become like them. Or we stop importing from them.

That's true, but ask yourself: is that political policy or in the hands of regular Americans?

If you ask me, I say it's the American consumer that caused a lot of our problems. When we shop, we shop to save the most money that we can while being able to obtain the products we really want. We don't care where our products are made, how much automation they use, how much they pay their workers. Just get me my products as cheaply as possible. It's why Walmart is number one and has been for many years.

Until our attitude about buying goods changes, no American policy can have any real impact. If I have to pay three or four bucks for a head of lettuce that was produced and processed by Americans only, I'm willing to spend the money. But unfortunately, I'm not like most American consumers.

I have problems with the opposite side of the coin as well. I was/am pissed that unions have driven the cost of buying a car to rates I cannot afford because they need to afford to pay a moron $25 - $50 an hour to stand on an assembly line and tighten bolts for a living. So I'm also against unions.

I'm for a fare wage. If someone works for a living they should be able to live decently on those wages. Not extravagantly but decent. And for those who can't go to college because of money or iq they don't deserve to be treated as less than human. Living wages for them too. College should get you better than living wages not just living wages.

 

[Pete7469]

...he said an American tried it and gave up after one box.

Question.

How much does this farmer pay a fruit picker to pick one box of fruit?

Obviously, just enough to entice an illegal alien, but not enough to entice an American who has other employment options.

Solution.

Pay your workers more, enough so someone can actually live off what you are paying him, maybe enough for groceries, rent, utilties, with a little extra left to go to the movies on Saturday.

Illegal aliens don't need that. They live 12 to an apartment, eat rice and beans, and send the rest of their money to their families in Mexico or Central America.

So, the farmer wants us to let in illegal aliens so he doesn't have to pay a living wage for an American.

So, why are the Democrats AGAINST a living wage for American workers?

This is why Trump won the election, because American workers realized the Democrats have abandoned them.

Why do they have to be illegal? Why can't they come in legally, stay in employer provided barracks type housing, and go home off season?

I don't care if we let MORE people in if they're vetted and are working, tracked, abide by the law and aren't voting for commies.

Yeah why can't they be the slaves in slave labor. Rental slaves who serve a season and then kicked to the curb when they are no longer wanted.

You seriously call people who are free to work for low wages or not "slaves"?

 

[cnelsen]

...he said an American tried it and gave up after one box.

Question.

How much does this farmer pay a fruit picker to pick one box of fruit?

Obviously, just enough to entice an illegal alien, but not enough to entice an American who has other employment options.

Solution.

Pay your workers more, enough so someone can actually live off what you are paying him, maybe enough for groceries, rent, utilties, with a little extra left to go to the movies on Saturday.

Illegal aliens don't need that. They live 12 to an apartment, eat rice and beans, and send the rest of their money to their families in Mexico or Central America.

So, the farmer wants us to let in illegal aliens so he doesn't have to pay a living wage for an American.

So, why are the Democrats AGAINST a living wage for American workers?

This is why Trump won the election, because American workers realized the Democrats have abandoned them.

And when your apples cost 6 times as much as they do now you will be the first one on here making a thread whining about how much produce cost.

Every year the diversity-loving, anti-white sophisticates at NPR trot out their "crops-are-rotting-in-the-fields" scare stories and every year idoits fall for the lies.

THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED BY FARM LABOR AS A PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE FOOD YOU BUY IN THE SUPERMARKET IS NEGLIGIBLE. IF DAIRY WORKERS WERE PAID $20 PER HOUR, THE COST OF A GALLON OF MILK IN THE STORE WOULD GO FROM $3.40 TO $3.89.

That is very nice. What is your source for those figures?

Also, dairy operations are mostly automated, it does not take that many people to hook cows up to milking machines so it would not affect the cost much.

That changes with labor intensive things like lettuce, strawberries and the like.

PBS is trotting out their annual crops-rotting-in-the-fields scare stories. It's fake news. There is no such thing as a "labor shortage". It's like saying there aren't enough Americans. We have enough people to run a country. In fact, we became the richest people on the planet when we had a third as many people living here.

But Congressman Luis Gutierrez says the entire economy would collapse if we didn't have 30 million illegals here milking our cows and mowing our lawns for us.

If the rapture occurred tomorrow, and it turns out only illegals go to Heaven, the next time you bought milk at the supermarket, you probably wouldn't even notice you'd been left behind.

According to a long and seemingly meticulous article I found at Progressive Dairy, and taking into account milk prices are very low "as the dollar has gotten stronger against other currencies, China has reduced its imports of American milk products, and Russia stopped importing American milk products as a result of the tensions surrounding the conflict in the Ukraine" the average price consumers were paying when they wrote the article per gallon of milk was 3.40 of which producers received 1.53. In terms of hundredweight, the numbers were 39.40 cwt and 17.85 cwt, respectively.
How much does the farmer get when a consumer buys milk? - Progressive Dairyman

And a chart I found at the University of Maryland's agbiz site listing the expenses a dairy farm can expect in terms of hundredweight includes three labor-related costs:

• custom hire (whatever that is, wink) .35 cwt
• employee benefits .05 cwt
• labor .90 cwt

for a total of 1.30 cwt for the labor on the dairy farm, or 3 percent of the amount the consumer pays in the store for a gallon of milk

https://www.arec.umd.edu/sites/arec.umd.edu/files/_docs/Milk Production Costs.pdf

This is in line with other analyses I've seen.

So the farmer discovered his work force gone to glory. But since this isn't India, the cows weren't going anywhere and needed to be milked. What to do? He's used to paying illegals eight dollars an hour or something like that, and the illegals are used to accepting that and living cheaply off the books--ten to a trailer, but when he advertises eight dollars per hour to come over and milk his cows for him, not a single American responds. So, muttering under his breath about how rotten today's youth are, he ups it to ten dollars per hour. One or two Americans respond, but these are the very worst of the dregs of the American work force. After all, ten dollars an hour is only $20,800 per year--not exactly what the young go-getters hoping to start a family are going to be happy with. So he curses them out, says it's no wonder they aren't going to Heaven, and tells them to go back to playing video games and selling their food stamps in front of the liquor store.

The farmer calls his congressman. Burt, we've got ourselves a severe labor shortage out here on the dairy farms. Milking cows is a job Americans don't want to do. Mexicans, now, they love milking cows, and are grateful for the eight dollars and all the milk their ten kids each, that my neighbors are paying to educate, can drink. But the pendejos all went to Heaven, so I'm wondering whether you got any of them really cheap Bangladeshis available who would jump at the chance to come milk cows in America and make my neighbors educate their kids.

Well the Congressman hems and haws and so the farmer quickly makes a two thousand dollar campaign contribution via PayPal and as soon as it hits the congressman's in-box, he says, You know Clyde, I feel your pain, family farms, salt of the earth, and so on, I just had a pack of those immigration lawyers from AILA through here this morning. They gave me some talking points--same as the ones they give PBS, so you know they're the real deal--and because we are a nation of immigrants, and welcoming immigrants is who we are, and everybody wants to increase their consumption levels, or, as they put it, have a chance at a better life, I've agreed to sponsor a bill that will import a whole slew of them cheap Bangladeshis you want to help get a better life after they (or you, hint, hint) pay the mandatory 1500 dollars a head commission, I mean, legal fee to a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. And the congressman's eye's light up when he sees Clyde's wife's $2000 campaign contribution hit his inbox.

Unfortunately for Clyde, the four grand didn't help strengthen free speech in our democracy at all. It turned out every single cheap labor unit in the world was now in Heaven singing Hosannahs, and Clyde was forced to pay a wage so extravagant it was downright sinful just to get American workers who, he had to admit, were good, hard-working, conscientious employees who paid for their own kids' educations.

Let's say he had to pay 24 dollars per hour to get crackerjack Americans to do the same work he used to be able to pay the cheaper humans from Mexico eight dollars per hour to do. That means the illegal alien component of the U of MD data above increases 70 cents to 1.05 cwt. It killed him, but he did. And he was forced to pass those costs on to the consumers. But, since all his competitors' employees had been raptured as well, his competitors were in the same boat he was. So, they too had to gouge the city slickers. For the consumer, the tripling of the cost of labor back on the farm sent the price for a gallon of milk soaring from 3.40 per gallon to 3.46 per gallon.

Most consumers didn't even notice the price of milk went up by six cents per gallon. I know I wouldn't. And with dairy workers (and restaurant dishwashers, and landscapers, and child care workers, and the list goes on) making $49,920 per year (and American IT workers even more!) there was a sudden and dramatic collapse in the wealth gap the New York Times has been virtuously wringing its old gray hands over since the 80s (while doing yeoman's work the whole time reminding Americans that who we are as a people means becoming who we aren't as a people).

And since Trump was president when The Rapture finally went down, all those free trade agreements the US Chamber of Congress and the American Dairy Association and the American Immigration Lawyers Association had written were torn up and the US imported the Chinese system of protective import taxes, which were implemented in case the world came up with another crop of cheaper humans.

Everybody had a better life, America was great again, and everybody lived happily ever after. Except the immigration lawyers, who are out in California picking strawberries to help the nation avoid the calamity of, as PBS put it, mountains of strawberries just rotting in the fields.

 

[cnelsen]

So, why are the Democrats AGAINST a living wage for American workers?

I've been pointing out this hypocrisy for years. Of course, those of us with a brain know this is not about a living wage. It's about votes

LOL- of course 'it's about votes'- that is how Trump got elected- promising to bring jobs back to America.

This farmer cannot find Americans to work for a price he can afford to pay and stay in business.

Why do Republicans think that deporting every illegal will result in employers paying a living wage to Americans?

There is no subject on which more people are stupider than on economics.

This farmer cannot find Americans to work for a price he can afford to pay and stay in business.​

So if farmers had to hire Americans and the price of milk went from $3.40 to $3.89 per gallon to cover the increase in wages, the farmers would go out of business? All the dairies would shut down and America would be a country without milk for our cereal? Is that what you think?

Why do Republicans think that deporting every illegal will result in employers paying a living wage to Americans?​

Um, yes, employers would have to, wouldn't they? The reason Republicans think that is because, in general, Republican voters are smarter than Democrat voters. (Between 1925 and 1965, we had virtually zero immigration, and during that time we built the greatest economy on earth and grew a middle class that was the envy of the world).

 

[Pete7469]

I have problems with the opposite side of the coin as well. I was/am pissed that unions have driven the cost of buying a car to rates I cannot afford because they need to afford to pay a moron $25 - $50 an hour to stand on an assembly line and tighten bolts for a living. So I'm also against unions.

I'm for a fare wage. If someone works for a living they should be able to live decently on those wages. Not extravagantly but decent. And for those who can't go to college because of money or iq they don't deserve to be treated as less than human. Living wages for them too. College should get you better than living wages not just living wages.

I think I undrrstand your point, but at the same time I don't believe you grasp the economic impact. If these people are willing to risk their lives for the status quo, why not bump them up to a legalized status, ensure they have adequate living provisions while here and can return home seasonally for wages they are willing to work for?

That is not slavery, it is supply/demand. When self appointed government tyrants get involved, economies shit the bed.

 

[cnelsen]

...he said an American tried it and gave up after one box.

Question.

How much does this farmer pay a fruit picker to pick one box of fruit?

Obviously, just enough to entice an illegal alien, but not enough to entice an American who has other employment options.

Solution.

Pay your workers more, enough so someone can actually live off what you are paying him, maybe enough for groceries, rent, utilties, with a little extra left to go to the movies on Saturday.

Illegal aliens don't need that. They live 12 to an apartment, eat rice and beans, and send the rest of their money to their families in Mexico or Central America.

So, the farmer wants us to let in illegal aliens so he doesn't have to pay a living wage for an American.

So, why are the Democrats AGAINST a living wage for American workers?

This is why Trump won the election, because American workers realized the Democrats have abandoned them.

And when your apples cost 6 times as much as they do now you will be the first one on here making a thread whining about how much produce cost.

Every year the diversity-loving, anti-white sophisticates at NPR trot out their "crops-are-rotting-in-the-fields" scare stories and every year idoits fall for the lies.

THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED BY FARM LABOR AS A PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE FOOD YOU BUY IN THE SUPERMARKET IS NEGLIGIBLE. IF DAIRY WORKERS WERE PAID $20 PER HOUR, THE COST OF A GALLON OF MILK IN THE STORE WOULD GO FROM $3.40 TO $3.89.

Every year the farmer hating anti-brown conservatives keep telling us that the Conservative farmers are lying to Americans when they say that they can't find American workers to work in the fields.

Goddam, leftists can be thick. Listen carefully: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Labor. Shortage.

To say there is a labor shortage is the same thing as saying we don't have enough Americans to do all the things that need to be done in America. I trust you can see how manifestly stupid that it.

 

[cnelsen]

This is why Trump won the election, because American workers realized the Democrats have abandoned them.

Free market capitalist sympathisers having buyers remorse.

You idiots destabilized Mexican agricultural communities and now you don't like the repercussions. Big Ag is laughing at your dumbasses all the way to the bank.

Reagan told you that he wanted an open border with Mexico, you got one. Enjoy.

Reagan? You mean Clinton.

I meant Reagan.

He was talking about a guest worker program, which is stupid enough. But it was Clinton who gutted the country with NAFTA.

 

[cnelsen]

You idiots destabilized Mexican agricultural communities and now you don't like the repercussions

Who, exactly, "destabilized" Mexican "agricultural communities"?

Anyone that supported free market capitalism. Primarily conservatives and neo-liberals..

The biggest economic hit on rural Mexico was NAFTA, and the biggest cultural hit has been mass illegal immigration to the US. The villain is globalism, nationalism is the cure.

 

[Tehon]

You idiots destabilized Mexican agricultural communities and now you don't like the repercussions

Who, exactly, "destabilized" Mexican "agricultural communities"?

Anyone that supported free market capitalism. Primarily conservatives and neo-liberals..

The biggest economic hit on rural Mexico was NAFTA, and the biggest cultural hit has been mass illegal immigration to the US. The villain is globalism, nationalism is the cure.

Yes, of course I'm talking about NAFTA. NAFTA devastated Mexico's agrarian communities.

And yes I know Clinton signed it into law. But it was years in the making and the outcome was telegraphed from the outset, Reagan laid out the vision and the rubes swallowed his shit and begged for more. Reagan and Bush Sr. did the heavy lifting, Clinton was there in time to get the accolades.

Globalism was sold to the rubes as free market capitalism. Government is the problem they said. We have to allow our corporations to compete globally they said. And the rubes begged for it. Now they wallow in their own stupidity and look for a savior to reverse course. Only their ignorance has led them to the greatest con man we have seen thus far. Trump is not a nationalist, he is an opportunist and a megalomaniac.

 

[Picaro]

How about 15 per hour plus partial benefits.....that's a start. No American should do that job for any less.

That is a very high number, enough to kill many millions of jobs.

they already kill many millions of jobs, and that's at wages half that, so that argument doesn't fly any more. Automation has been ongoing for 250 years +, and it isn't going to stop; wages have little effect on it, and never have.

Most crops aren't picked by hand any more, less than 2% are, and in any case the 'farmer' in the OP is a liar, as this article from the right wing racist rag Mother Jones shows:

Silence in the Fields – Mother Jones

This is how crappily they treat legal H1-A workers, so you can imagine how they treat illegals. These farmers don't even bother to look for American workers at all. Screw them and their self-inflicted problems.