• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Farm Labor Shortage 'Worst It's Been, Ever'

clownboy said:
So, after California has virtually thrown open it's doors to illegals they don't want to work in the fields there. They will in other states, and it seems like the illegals keep streaming into the states where they're least welcomed.

So is it because the illegals have stopped calling California home, or because it's been made so good for them there that they no longer need to work?
Click to expand...

I live in San Diego.

Most of the illegals here work in the co struction trades.

The housing industry here is ****ed right now.

Many of those who were here actually went back to Mexico.

El Dorado dried up.
 
Ikari said:
WTF is this? Soviet Russia?

Some people may refuse to work for various reasons, a certain percentage will be lazy, another percentage may be disabled, another may not have means to relocate, etc. Getting rid of welfare isn't a solution as you will find yourself in deeper trouble when homeless rates skyrocket and crime goes through the roof in many areas and we'll all have to spend more money combating that problem than if we just floated some people along. Part of the problem is the current construct of welfare wherein it may make more financial sense for a family to stay on welfare than to take some jobs. You could address that problem. Some of these jobs only illegals worked because the didn't meet US standards for jobs, you could address that problem as well. There are a myriad of possible routes to go that isn't to shoot them or huck them onto the streets.
Click to expand...

YOu are not understanding what I siad. I said able bodied people refusing to work. That discludes the disabled, elderly ect. I also never said anything about getting rid of welfare. I said cut it off for able bodied people who are refusing to work. So please try your reply again as your previous one doesnt pertain to what I said.
 
Tucker Case said:
The value of hard work is precisely **** all more than the value of easy work at those wages. These farm owners are the ones who need to be taught the value of hard work. They have been getting it done for them for way too cheap for way too long, apparently.
Click to expand...

They pay more than anywhere else in the world. If you want to try to push that idea they are probably overpaying based on the worlds industry average.
 
muciti said:
They pay more than anywhere else in the world. If you want to try to push that idea they are probably overpaying based on the worlds industry average.
Click to expand...

They aren't growing it all over the world, they are growing it here. They need to incorporate reality into their business model.
 
muciti said:
YOu are not understanding what I siad. I said able bodied people refusing to work. That discludes the disabled, elderly ect. I also never said anything about getting rid of welfare. I said cut it off for able bodied people who are refusing to work. So please try your reply again as your previous one doesnt pertain to what I said.
Click to expand...

What I said applies to the whole system, including "able bodied" people.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, for trying to run a business that cannot be sustained without exploiting their labor force, they are scumbags. They are idiots for not having a viable alternative to exploitation.
Click to expand...

Considering they pay well above the industry standard your are not correct.

Paying less than the market will bare by using employees that have highly limited options is, pretty much by definition, exploitation. I'm sorry you have a poor vocabulary, but you'll have ot take it up with the morons who failed in your education, not me.
Click to expand...

How are they paying less than the market? I would guess outside the US the market for field labor is less than $2/hr and inside the US that is the norm.

What the **** do I care where they work?
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that they shut down their business and lay off their current employees which are probably in the 10's of thousands. So we would be injecting that many more people into an already overcrowded welfare base.

Cause they exploit their labor force.
Click to expand...

You have yet to explain that.

I know, but unlike you I'm not just whining about the problem. I'm offering solutions based on the reality that is the innate stupidity of mankind. That problem can only be solved by changing the current laws and allowing businesses which rely on bad business models (like these farms) to fail.
Click to expand...

Your suggestions on how to fix it are not reality. These farmers cannot run their businesses on your ideas. They have to deal with existing laws and the existing market and the existing spending habits of their customer bases.

Operate using a good business model instead of a ****ty one.
Click to expand...

Explain a business model using existing laws.

Ask yourself this: Would you rather work 45 hours a week in an easy job or 40 hours a week in back breaking labor in order to earn the same total income?
Click to expand...

These people dont have the option. They are not working and there is a labor intensive job being offered. The option they are looking at is be a leech or work.

If your business model is such that the people you wish to employ have such choices, the problem is with your ****ty business model, not the labor force.
Click to expand...

It is not their business model. it is the industries business model. Again American Farm owners pay their laborers more than anywhere else in the world and suffer for it. You are yet to provide a realistic alternative.
 
Tucker Case said:
They aren't growing it all over the world, they are growing it here. They need to incorporate reality into their business model.
Click to expand...

Food is grown all over the world. that same food is imported from all over the world. These farmers are not just competing with other american farmers.
 
Ikari said:
What I said applies to the whole system, including "able bodied" people.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt. Your post does not address mine. You are replying to me as if i stated we should end welfare and let the disabled starve. Which is nowhere what I said. Please reply to my actual post or dont reply to me.
 
muciti said:
No it doesnt. Your post does not address mine. You are replying to me as if i stated we should end welfare and let the disabled starve. Which is nowhere what I said. Please reply to my actual post or dont reply to me.
Click to expand...

No, what I said was entirely a critique of the full system and countering your "take the able bodied people off welfare and any that commit a crime should be shot" argument.
 
muciti said:
What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Shooting people you've thrown out on the street, making them destitute and well more likely to commit crimes? I don't know, seems like the ol' Catch-22.
 
Ikari said:
Shooting people you've thrown out on the street, making them destitute and well more likely to commit crimes? I don't know, seems like the ol' Catch-22.
Click to expand...

It's not actually that complicated. While I do advocate ending welfare, I do not advocate enforced labor. You give them the choice of doing for themselves and if they cannot or choose not to, then they have a place to go where their basic needs are provided for. No one forces them to go, if they choose to starve on the street, then I guess we will need to hire people to remove their bodies. Oh well, their choice. You don't actually force them into anything, you give them choices and let them choose. Of course, most people would choose working on a farm or other project to starving to death on the street.

As to controlling crime, that is not very difficult, it is a binary set really. If you do x then you will receive y, if y is undesirable enough, then you won't do x. Look at total crime statistics (Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime) you'll notice that the countries with the harshest penalties trend towards the bottom while those that are more lenient trend towards the top, it is not really unpredictable or suprising that the US is at the top of that list. Rober A. Heinlein in Starship Troopers pretty much predicted it back in 1959.

"I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment--and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism?...As for 'unusual,' punishment must be unusual or it serves no purpose...Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense...We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind...What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everthing we do." -- Robert A. Heinlein, excerpted from Starship Troopers.

Maybe you don't think his theory is right, but I do. So instead of being lenient on these individuals at the cost to society and mankind as a whole, I believe they should be given choices directly related to their survival instincts, if they make the wrong choice, oh well, society and mankind as a whole benefits from not carrying on that individuals traits and allowing them to infect greater numbers of people. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"--Spock from Star Trek II, the Wrath of Kahn. So when you consider if something is humane, is it humane to the individual at the cost of society? Mankind will continue and survive, probably, but all individuals die eventually, society and the future of mankind are the many, it's needs must outweigh the needs of the individual.
 
DVSentinel said:
As to controlling crime, that is not very difficult, it is a binary set really. If you do x then you will receive y, if y is undesirable enough, then you won't do x. Look at total crime statistics (Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime) you'll notice that the countries with the harshest penalties trend towards the bottom while those that are more lenient trend towards the top, it is not really unpredictable or suprising that the US is at the top of that list. Rober A. Heinlein in Starship Troopers pretty much predicted it back in 1959.
Click to expand...

We jail the highest percentage of our population of all nations. We have stricter and harsher punishment for crime than Europe, including the death penalty. Where's Europe on that list compared to America?

I also don't think the aggressive, military based, draconian government presented in Starship Troopers is particularly a good way to go. I would rather have my freedom.
 
Ikari said:
Shooting people you've thrown out on the street, making them destitute and well more likely to commit crimes? I don't know, seems like the ol' Catch-22.
Click to expand...

These people have the option of working and instead are choosing to prey on hard working innocent people. Cutting off their welfare when they are refusing a job opportunity is not me making them destitute and throwing them on the street. That is their choice.

It is one thing to be on welfare because you have no choice. But when you have a choice, and work in front of you, and you could do it, and instead you choose to stay at home and be on welfare because its easier I have a problem. There is no reason for that person to get assistance. And if working for that $9.25 doesnt quite feed your family (which it certainly can) but if not I am fine with using welfare to supplement someone who is working and needs a little more help. Or someone who genuinely needs help. But able bodied people turning down work have no business on welfare.
 
muciti said:
These people have the option of working and instead are choosing to prey on hard working innocent people. Cutting off their welfare when they are refusing a job opportunity is not me making them destitute and throwing them on the street. That is their choice.

It is one thing to be on welfare because you have no choice. But when you have a choice, and work in front of you, and you could do it, and instead you choose to stay at home and be on welfare because its easier I have a problem. There is no reason for that person to get assistance. And if working for that $9.25 doesnt quite feed your family (which it certainly can) but if not I am fine with using welfare to supplement someone who is working and needs a little more help. Or someone who genuinely needs help. But able bodied people turning down work have no business on welfare.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but you're going to contribute to a higher crime rate, a unrecoverable loss out of the job pool, and end up spending more money policing and jailing all those people we threw in jail. Particularly if you are going to start calling for death penalty punishments.
 
Ikari said:
We jail the highest percentage of our population of all nations. We have stricter and harsher punishment for crime than Europe, including the death penalty. Where's Europe on that list compared to America?

I also don't think the aggressive, military based, draconian government presented in Starship Troopers is particularly a good way to go. I would rather have my freedom.
Click to expand...
That is crime total. I really don't get how people can't see that on first sight.

We need to look at crime per capita.
 
Ikari said:
That's fine, but you're going to contribute to a higher crime rate, a unrecoverable loss out of the job pool, and end up spending more money policing and jailing all those people we threw in jail. Particularly if you are going to start calling for death penalty punishments.
Click to expand...

I would rather spend money policing criminals than giving money to them. The slight increase in cost to police them can be offset by taking money from the penal system luxeries prisoners have. The money we spend on prisoners is rediculous. They should be given the absolute bare minimum needed to sustain life and nothing more.

What unrecoverable loss out of the job pool are you talking about?
 
muciti said:
I would rather spend money policing criminals than giving money to them. The slight increase in cost to police them can be offset by taking money from the penal system luxeries prisoners have. The money we spend on prisoners is rediculous. They should be given the absolute bare minimum needed to sustain life and nothing more.

What unrecoverable loss out of the job pool are you talking about?
Click to expand...

You are taking people who could have worked and jail them, send them out into the streets and make them destitute wherein they are more likely to commit crime and thus be jailed, and you're calling for killing them as well.

I'd rather spend less money overall and have some amount of social safety net that benefits the lot of us.
 
I would say that if they can't prove that they have a good reason for not taking the job, they should be cut off from welfare.

That will make the kids work.
 
Ikari said:
You are taking people who could have worked and jail them, send them out into the streets and make them destitute wherein they are more likely to commit crime and thus be jailed, and you're calling for killing them as well.

I'd rather spend less money overall and have some amount of social safety net that benefits the lot of us.
Click to expand...

They are not working. And if they are criminals they deserve to die.
 
Ikari said:
We jail the highest percentage of our population of all nations. We have stricter and harsher punishment for crime than Europe, including the death penalty. Where's Europe on that list compared to America?

I also don't think the aggressive, military based, draconian government presented in Starship Troopers is particularly a good way to go. I would rather have my freedom.
Click to expand...


Not all states have the death penalty and only 1, Texas, actually uses it on a regular basis. Our prisons are not punishment, their a trade school for criminals. Very few of them even make prisoners work at hard labor, if it weren't for them being locked in their cells, the would have better benefits, like gyms, cable tv, etc than hard working citizens do. For most of our prisoners, prison is 3 squares and cot, not punishment. And even where we do use capital punishment, it is done almost in secret and lethal injection really has no "fear factor" to it to deter crime.

Europe also does not have a welfare state as we know it. I don't know about all of Europe, but when I was in Germany, they had a workfare system, not welfare. Of course they also had a better education system and their people seemed a lot more disciplined than here. Unfortunately, the government runs too much there, too much like socialism.

While I don't think we should totally adopt the government he presents in the book, but I would take it anyday over some tard like Marx.

Since you seem of actually read the book, what freedoms are you talking about that were taken away? The right to vote without earning it? Hell we have that freedom now and look how fast we are failing and all the problems we have.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Infinite Chaos said:
The best trades and manual workers usually have "foreigners" going on at the same time. --
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Immigrants at all. I was one of the few American-born people in most of the jobs I did, but I'm an immigrants kid. when I talk abut foreign labor, I don't mean immigrants. Sorry if that wasn't clear.





Gotcha. I think there was a misunderstanding with what I was saying. I didn't mean anything about "immigrants" when I said "migrant farm work". I meant farm jobs where you have to move with the work based on the seasons. Immigrants typically are the people working these jobs, but that's merely a linguistic coincidence rather than anything else.
Click to expand...

Tucker, I'm really sorry and I apologise for my assumption. When some British workers talk about a "foreigner" they mean a bit of work on the side / work which is not part of the daily company work and the company the person is working for will never see any revenue. Usually the tax-man won't know that work is going on which is why it's colloquially called a "foreigner."

I forget we're divided by a pond as I usually "get" your humour.

Anyhow - to re-explain my previous post, the first part of what I said meant that the best or better manual workers probably also have work on the side going on. A really good bricklayer for example might use company tools at weekends or after hours to do some extra private work (a "foreigner").
So my good friend Neil (for example) worked for a local roofing company but he was attracting a lot of requests for private work at weekends - when his company contracted he was one of the first to be laid off but as one of the better and more expensive employees he had enough work lined up to help him start his own roofing business. In the end, he finally got his private weekends back.
 
muciti said:
I would rather spend money policing criminals than giving money to them. The slight increase in cost to police them can be offset by taking money from the penal system luxeries prisoners have. The money we spend on prisoners is rediculous. They should be given the absolute bare minimum needed to sustain life and nothing more.

What unrecoverable loss out of the job pool are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Brilliant!

Deterrence is a farce. So your plan would just result in more cases being tried in the street. Represe ted by Smith and Wesson.

Yall just hate it when your capitalist utopia doesnt work out.

People dont want to be peasants.

We pay CEOs exhorbitant sums because we "need" them. So since we "need" farm workers farmers are going to pay what the market will bear.

Seasonal migratory back breaking minimum wage work will be resisted by anybody with sense. Sitting in a gas station all night pays about the same. **** picking cotton.
 
Ikari said:
You are taking people who could have worked and jail them, send them out into the streets and make them destitute wherein they are more likely to commit crime and thus be jailed, and you're calling for killing them as well.

I'd rather spend less money overall and have some amount of social safety net that benefits the lot of us.
Click to expand...

put em in prison. It's the American way. Put mentally handicapped in prison too. out of sight out of mind. Keep the middle class suburbs free of these people. They ruin property values.:roll:

Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons - The 2012 Statistical Abstract - U.S. Census Bureau
 
What if...? said:
Seasonal migratory back breaking minimum wage work will be resisted by anybody with sense. Sitting in a gas station all night pays about the same. **** picking cotton.
Click to expand...
Getting a job in a gas station should be pretty difficult in California if people are actually interested in having jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom