Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job.

[nmoore63]

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1244 ... 7433_zpid/

How's the Crappie fishing there?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/845/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/377/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/809/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/391/

Nice places I go within about 20 miles or so.

[Fife]

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1244 ... 7433_zpid/

How's the Crappie fishing there?

https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/845/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/377/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/809/
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/391/

Nice places I go within about 20 miles or so.

I'm buying a temporary WA license and expecting the grand tour soon. I'll reciprocate on your next trip to Nashvegas, if you'll remind me when you are going to be in town next time (I'm pretty absent minded, believe it or not.).

[Otern]

Can't really blame them.

People don't want to go into low skilled/paying jobs with no chance of advancement, which those kinds of jobs usually are. Flipping burgers give you an opportunity to be one of those guys ordering other burger flippers around some day. It has room for advancement. Harvesting by hand? Not so much. Too many hand harvester, and the leaders will be educated in farming anyway, so you're not getting his position.

There's huge differences between low paying jobs, in how much of a future people can get from it. Seasonal farm workers have probably the worst outcomes. Back breaking, no chance of advancement, season dependent. Adding a little more to minimum wage is not enough to make it attractive.

Minimum wage work need to be secure, easy, have room for advancement, and something people like to do, for it to be viable. Otherwise, desperation works as recruitment too, which is why you'll always find an immigrant to do it.

[Speaker to Animals]

The problem is the corporate farm. It's very economically efficient, but terrible for society if you possess plenty of arable land to feed everybody.

A better outcome is for those potential farm workers to have their own small farms. Pick their own vegetables and sell them in a local market or through a co-op.

That produces lower food yields overall, but most participants are better off. If your country is poor in arable land, then you are better off with giant corporate farms running on Monsanto seeds and Dupont pesticides, etc.

[Otern]

The problem is the corporate farm. It's very economically efficient, but terrible for society if you possess plenty of arable land to feed everybody.

A better outcome is for those potential farm workers to have their own small farms. Pick their own vegetables and sell them in a local market or through a co-op.

That produces lower food yields overall, but most participants are better off. If your country is poor in arable land, then you are better off with giant corporate farms running on Monsanto seeds and Dupont pesticides, etc.

That's a bit wrong. Corporate farms are economically efficient, but they're not efficient from an agricultural view.

The yields on small farms are actually higher than on industrial farms, if you calculate it by area. But they're less economically efficient due to labor costs. So, economists will calculate efficiency by resources spent, and profits received. But they're missing land use efficiency by doing that.

So, one gives off a lot of cheap products. The other gives off even more, but also more expensive products. Giant corporate farms might be the better option somewhere, but that's purely from economics, not due to higher yield or increased agricultural efficiency.