Automation and Mechanization: The agricultural sector has been steadily moving towards more automation. Even labor-intensive crops are increasingly being harvested by machines. For instance, technologies for harvesting fruits like berries and nuts are advancing, reducing the dependency on manual labor. This could mitigate labor shortages and keep food prices stable or even reduce them due to efficiency gains.
Domestic Labor Market: There's an argument that American workers could fill these roles if wages were adjusted to be competitive. With unemployment at various levels, there's a pool of labor that could be tapped into, particularly if jobs in agriculture were made more attractive through better wages, benefits, or working conditions. The idea is that with the right incentives, the workforce gap could be filled by legal residents or citizens, potentially without a significant increase in food prices.
Economic Adjustments: If labor costs do rise due to fewer workers, the market would adjust. Farmers might switch to less labor-intensive crops, invest in labor-saving technology, or increase efficiency through other means. The increase in wages might be absorbed by higher productivity or offset by other savings in the production process. This adjustment could keep increases in food prices minimal or within market tolerance.
Imports and Market Dynamics: The U.S. already imports a significant portion of its produce. An increase in domestic labor costs could be balanced by an increase in imports from countries where labor is cheaper. Additionally, market dynamics might lead to a shift in consumer behavior towards less labor-intensive produce or domestically mechanized crops, thus maintaining price stability.
Long-term Economic Health: There's also an argument for the broader economic implications. Mass deportation might reduce immediate labor costs but could lead to economic disruption. However, proponents of stricter immigration enforcement argue that the long-term benefits of legal control over the workforce could lead to more stable economic conditions, potentially offsetting any short-term increase in food prices. This perspective suggests that a regulated labor market might eventually stabilize or even lower costs through better planning and resource allocation.
Many pay a premium for organic foods. A premium for fair-trade coffee.
Why wouldn't we want to pay the market price for food without exploiting labor??
How can anyone justify lower food costs for the average consumer by exploiting labor?
Yes everyone needs to eat. Europeans have long used a higher percentage of their income for food than the US. You get what you pay for.
More made in China stuff? Or better food? IDK??
The poor who cannot afford food even now, well there is charity and numerous programs. Maybe the poor will not be so poor, when market wages are paid for labor.
Grok output:
Automation and Mechanization: The agricultural sector has been steadily moving towards more automation. Even labor-intensive crops are increasingly being harvested by machines. For instance, technologies for harvesting fruits like berries and nuts are advancing, reducing the dependency on manual labor. This could mitigate labor shortages and keep food prices stable or even reduce them due to efficiency gains.
Domestic Labor Market: There's an argument that American workers could fill these roles if wages were adjusted to be competitive. With unemployment at various levels, there's a pool of labor that could be tapped into, particularly if jobs in agriculture were made more attractive through better wages, benefits, or working conditions. The idea is that with the right incentives, the workforce gap could be filled by legal residents or citizens, potentially without a significant increase in food prices.
Economic Adjustments: If labor costs do rise due to fewer workers, the market would adjust. Farmers might switch to less labor-intensive crops, invest in labor-saving technology, or increase efficiency through other means. The increase in wages might be absorbed by higher productivity or offset by other savings in the production process. This adjustment could keep increases in food prices minimal or within market tolerance.
Imports and Market Dynamics: The U.S. already imports a significant portion of its produce. An increase in domestic labor costs could be balanced by an increase in imports from countries where labor is cheaper. Additionally, market dynamics might lead to a shift in consumer behavior towards less labor-intensive produce or domestically mechanized crops, thus maintaining price stability.
Long-term Economic Health: There's also an argument for the broader economic implications. Mass deportation might reduce immediate labor costs but could lead to economic disruption. However, proponents of stricter immigration enforcement argue that the long-term benefits of legal control over the workforce could lead to more stable economic conditions, potentially offsetting any short-term increase in food prices. This perspective suggests that a regulated labor market might eventually stabilize or even lower costs through better planning and resource allocation.
Many pay a premium for organic foods. A premium for fair-trade coffee.
Why wouldn't we want to pay the market price for food without exploiting labor?? How can anyone justify lower food costs for the average consumer by exploiting labor?
Yes everyone needs to eat. Europeans have long used a higher percentage of their income for food than the US. You get what you pay for.
More made in China stuff? Or better food? IDK??
The poor who cannot afford food even now, well there is charity and numerous programs. Maybe the poor will not be so poor, when market wages are paid for labor.