What would happen if we didn't have foreigners to pick crops? A look at Japan

Logical fallacy. You might want to look up what an equivocation fallacy is (more specifically the "No true Scotsman" variant)

 

No thanks. I'll just stick with the obvious: an underclass has no power, by definition.

 

lunacy of course, most Americans were in the underclass and moved up. Nowadays its not so easy to move up as liberals create multi generation ghettos with their crippling programs.

 

An underclass, by definition, exhibits no social mobility. Why can't you understand the basics?

 

embarrassed for you
un·der·class
ˈəndərˌklas/
noun

1. the lowest social stratum in a country or community, consisting of the poor and unemployed.

 

I refer to the economics, I know you don't. An underclass is difficult to document as you have to show zero mobility.

 

there is zero mobility in our ghettos because they are 98% liberal. 100 years ago there was huge mobility. Where would Marx be without an underclass to exploit!!

 

America is one of the few developed countries that have a documented underclass. To suggest that's because of their liberalism is not credible. Please be credible.

 

once ghettos turned liberal mobility was stopped by crippling welfare entitlements
1+1=2

 

Sorry, is this English?

 

related thread:
Immigrant labor decimates family owned farms in New Zealand

They're saying "Who would work on these dairy jobs if we didn't have migrants?"
Meanwhile, family-owned dairy operations are going out of business because they can't compete with the big corporate-owned dairy operations, and wages have drastically fallen for the workers as well. Working conditions are also not as good under corporate control.

 

Time to rethink. Adapt or perish.

 

It may not be a situation New Zealanders should just be expected to adapt to, if the change is being fueled by low wages and migration from foreign countries.

In terms of economics, that would only possibly make sense if we presume there are better jobs and places for all these displaced family farmers to go to.
I don't know how realistic it is to expect them all to become doctors and lawyers, and there would probably be too many lawyers in the country even if half of them did go to law school.

And one also has to realize that even if, for the sake of argument, they find a job in a city that pays as much as they were earning before, the costs of living are also likely going to be higher, and the lifestyle will not be the same, having plenty of open green space around, and working on one's own time.
In any case, the country doesn't really have a lot of big cities and does not have the same employment opportunities that exist in other countries. Many professionals, for example, end up having to leave New Zealand for Australia or the US, for more opportunity or better pay, since New Zealand is not really a big country or very urbanized.

 

You're thinking in the old parameters. BC (before COVID), changing economic times sometimes meant changing professions. This is entirely different. Adaptation means changing your entire lifestyle from what you assumed it would always be (job, house, buy your food, etc etc), to whatever works. In this case, we're talking about dairy farmers, who are in possession of some of the richest lands on the planet, and almost always with good water. They barely need to try, to survive the coming economic changes.

 

That sounds like economic flexibility, in some cases, settling for reduced standards of living and impoverishment, in other cases.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's so simple as that.
The real question is how much of this is really about increased efficiency coming from centralized operation, and how much is this about lower wages and workers being driven to higher efficiencies and suffering for it.
There is an intangible lifestyle issue as well, so even if corporations did inherently have a slightly higher rate of economic efficiency, that would not necessarily automatically justify the changeover to corporate dominance.

In addition to all that, an argument could also be made about a trade-off between economic efficiency and economic inequality inherent in the system. (i.e. the argument that even if there is more wealth generated, the majority may still end up worse off) When labor is devalued, and the price of land/resources increases, it is generally a recipe for rising rates of inequality.

I think economic efficiency has to be weighed against other factors, the real source of those gains in economic efficiency identified, and quantified, to be able to more accurately weigh against the other factors.

 

This is true...it's sink or swim time.

If the US deems milk and food to be essentials, equitably distributed to all Americans, then the US government needs to create some form of subsidies or perhaps nationalize all food industries into non-profits. If the US government leaves all the decisions to capitalism to sort out, on items deemed essential to the citizenry, we will have what we are seeing today. Capitalism boils everything down to winners and losers, with little to no regard for what's in the best interest of the USA. I'm all for capitalism but I'm also for a government that protects and provides essentials to it's citizenry. IMO this includes food, health care, security, education, infrastructure, etc.

 

Corporate dominance does not work well for every product. For example, a huge corporate milk producer who develops the capacity to serve all Americans milk for $.50/gallon is possible. However, it will be one type of milk, only available in gallons, instead of the 50 varieties of milk products we have today, and none of it will be locally produced. And, as with today's meat packing plant COVID-19 issues, if these large corporate businesses hiccup, supply chain issues will exist across the nation. Another example might be a new automobile that sells for $10K, which is certainly possible, but again there would only be one model, no options, all would be the same color, etc.

IMO there is room for everyone to participate 'whenever' it makes viable business sense. Consumers don't want corporate dominance...they want choice and quality and performance, etc.

 

Still thinking in the old parameters. Adaptation is about survival, not trying to cling to a lost standard of living and redundant equation (job, house, buy food, etc).

If you're a dairy farmer who can't make it work in 2020, reduce your herd to whatever can be managed by the family, and supply locally. Turn the remainder of your land over to whatever your local community needs. Eggs? Vegetables? Farmed fish? Cheese? Grains? If that's too hard, gather any extended family/friends who might be struggling on their own and work together to produce just what your little community needs. That's just TWO options. There are many more.

The only thing you can't do in any newly failing business model, is sit around waiting and hoping. Agriculture - as it happens - is slated to survive this pandemic better than all other industries, but there are many many industries which are no longer viable. If you're in one, get out of it and find something pandemic proof.

 

I agree that in emergencies of this nature, Govt is obliged to care for its citizens - primarily via containment of the threat. While that's happening, physical survival must be supported for the duration via any gaps in food/shelter/healthcare access. All Govts should have a plan, ready in place for these unexpected emergencies. Just as they ask citizens to have a slush fund for emergencies, so should they.

Having said that, I'm absolutely opposed to indiscriminate 'assistance', since it severely limits the duration of support available. If a Govt has $X put aside for emergencies, but then simply portions it up equally and without consideration of need .... it's going to last five minutes. If it's apportioned according to need, it will last much longer and therefore do far more good. When carelessly distributed, a lot of it ends up in the hands of those who won't use it to secure their survival, and that money is then lost to the cause, and to the greater community. It MUST be apportioned according to strict criteria, if it's to do any good. My own criteria (where I allowed to run free with my Commie ideas) would be that use of Govt monies to do anything other than acquire essential basic foods & utilities would disqualify you from further assistance. And no way in the world would I fund independent private housing. IOW rented or mortgaged residences housing only one family/single/couple per unit. The pursuit of un-affordable housing is what makes people so vulnerable to crises in the first place. Upshot, my criteria for housing assistance would be ROOMS only, wherever Govt can fit you, unless the family/single/couple is prepared to cohabit with another family/single/couple in order to remain in an area of choice and have more than just a room. This no doubt seems 'harsh' to some, but if we expect to care for everyone, for the duration of an emergency, it's what has to be done. Fail to be this 'harsh', and you end up with many people falling through the net because so much of the money went to the wrong people. People who abuse and waste assistance by not using it for its intended purpose.

 

Oh, we're not suggesting it's because of liberalism. But if I tell you the reason, you'll just call us "right wing".

Look, what I've long said is that America, compared to other countries, is like a First World coexisting side by side next to a Third World. There's really not many other countries like that in the world. (A lot of this has to do with America's high levels of diversity) But that will likely soon be changing in the near future. We can already see a trend in Europe, as diversity increases, social altruism goes down, and the governments have gradually begun to become a little less socialistic.

Maybe the only other country in the world that's at all comparable to the US might be Argentina. But Argentina is almost more of a "Second World" country in terms of living standards.

 

~ I am guessing that this statement represents the majority of Americans. I will add provide safe and humane conditions and not take advantage of low skill workers.

 

You are right wing. The problem is that you don't bother to construct that stance around sound application of economics.

This is just repetition of guff. The problem for America is that its the land of cliche. They refer to the American Dream when it is characterised by social immobility. Indeed, even the American Revolution is a sham. They continued in the exact same way, adopting class conflict so loved by Mother England.

And any link between immigration and anti-socialism? Portugal is a bit of a problem for the right wing ranting. In reality, we have neoliberalism using immigration to justify coerced deterioration in income and wealth inequalities. Brexit is actually a classic example of that. Working class people have consistently voted against their best interest. Despite objective economic evidence demonstrating the problem is really market fundamentalism and austerity, the anti-immigration dripfeed creates Little Englanders.

Nonsense. America is no different to Mother England. It just replaced the monarchy with Big Business earlier.

 

~ Don't forget America also has the U.S. Constitution .

 

Yep, we can also play pretend that a written constitution protects more than an unwritten one

 

Well, you certainly have fewer freedom of speech rights, and freedom of gun & self defense rights, and fewer other civil liberties in general, on the other side of the pond.

(for the proof about civil liberties, I would see here and here)