Last summer, plenty of drama emanated from California's Salinas Valley, epicenter of industrial vegetable production (organic and otherwise) and self-proclaimed "nation's salad bowl."
The season began amid grumbles among growers about a labor shortage. To paraphrase their complaint: Not enough Mexican workers are sneaking across the border, and ones who are are drawn into higher-paying construction jobs.
The season ended in an ignominious nationwide E. coli outbreak that killed three people and sickened hundreds of others.
About this time each year, industrial vegetable production shifts to Arizona's Yuma County, source of 90 percent of winter vegetables in the U.S. and (gasp) 98 percent of its iceberg lettuce. Let the drama begin.
Yuma county growers are complaining bitterly of, you guessed it, a labor shortage. Yuma lies along the Mexican border, now teeming with cops and nativist zealots. If you were an undocumented worker, wouldn't you stay away?
In a theoretical market situation, the growers would simply jack up their wages, draw in more workers, and pass the price on to the big supermarket chains, which would in turn pass the increase on to consumers.
In the real world, though, two factors prevent that scenario. First, few U.S. citizens are willing to spend their time in a field harvesting lettuce at any wage, and undocumented workers are staying the hell away from the border to avoid the cops.
Second, big buyers like Wal-Mart -- erstwhile savior of organic agriculture -- hold the trump card in this market. If Arizona growers jack their prices up, the Wal-Marts of the world will just buy from Mexico or elsewhere. The border may impede the flow of labor, but goods flow freely.
So when there's a labor shortage in Yuma, growers typically find it makes the most sense to let crops rot on the vine. Brilliant system, huh?
Meanwhile, there's another situation that should generate drama but doesn't: Yuma County growers rely on the Colorado River for irrigation, and the river is polluted with perchlorate, the rocket fuel used by the Pentagon to fuel the U.S. war machine.
The Environmental Working Group has found significant traces of the vile stuff on lettuce; the Bush Administration says it's no big deal.
I say, work with local farmers to invest in season-extension infrastructure, so you can get your winter vegetables under less, um, dramatic circumstances.
While you're working on that, plant a winter garden under a cold frame.
The localization of agriculture
EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 5:27 am
28 Nov 2006
You can't make this point often enough.
www.grist.org
Permalink
meander Posted 7:11 am
28 Nov 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:25 am
28 Nov 2006
So yes, why wouldn't farmers just say the hell with it and sell out to developers?
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:54 am
28 Nov 2006
I do believe these strange trends might present opportunities for sustainable, local-oriented agriculture. I would, however, like to hear someone like JS Scorse explain the logic behind them.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:41 pm
28 Nov 2006
First off, while I don't have very strong positions on immigration either way- although this may change- I think that if there aren't U.S. workers to pick the food and we as a society say that we want to limit Mexican immigrants into the country then some businesses are going to fold- it's that simple- is that good, bad? I don't know- for the farmers it certainly is and for the Mexican illegals it is, but if society decides that we want to limit illegal immigration than maybe that trumps the other losses- there are trade-offs here and I don't believe one has to be a racist to believe that a country has a right to decide who comes in- if we wanted even cheaper food we could let in 100 million people and let them bid the price of labor so low that lettuce would be a few cents less- is that right?
I think Tom's belief that somehow we're going to wake up and find no food produced is simply ludicrous- food production just about everywhere is at an all-time high, farmers markets are thriving just about everywhere, organic is growing by double digits every year, and in areas where fresh food becomes scarce people will be willing to pay more for it which will keep production going- I have no worries whatsoever about that
What I do worry about are some of the environmental effects since agriculture can really trash the environment- but like I have said before, we can eliminate much of that by eliminating production subsidies, which we should everywhere
The point that goods flow freely over borders but not people is something economists have studied for decades and it's not that simple- actually, embedded in goods is labor and resources- if I import something from China or Mexico I'm importing the labor that went into the good- so if agriculture shifts to other areas that will increase labor employment there- would it be so terrible if agricultural jobs in some parts of the U.S. shifted to Mexico? Wouldn't the Mexicans prefer that rather than crossing over illegal borders under the risk of death?
In summary, these aren't simple issues and I think much of the conventional thinking by environmentalists is wrong.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:35 pm
28 Nov 2006
I heartily agree that the contradictions and absurdities of industrial ag present space for alternatives.
As for labor on the border, puzzle this one out for me. Free-trade dogma says that when capital is free to seek its highest rate of return, things work most efficiently. If a textile company can produce more cheaply in Mexico -- or now, SE Asia and China -- than it should move to those areas. Profits is maximized, jobs are created in the new areas, and workers left behind on the home front are free to pursue "higher value" activities. That's the theory, correct?
But what is the rationale for denying the same right to labor, that is, to seek its highest return? Why should capital -- people's wealth -- be given a higher level of rights then people themselves? Why should goods -- objects -- also be favored over people?
The idea that goods represent "embedded labor" seems a limp apology for an unjust order. Sorry, you are not free to cross the border, but rest assured that the television that you've assembled from pre-fab Asian parts will be shipped tomorrow.
As it is, a militarized border combined with a free trade pact simply holds wages down on both sides of the border. It helps enforce a labor surplus in Mexico, and on this side creates a disenfranchised pool of workers easily exploitable by the likes of Smithfield Foods.
I do support free trade broadly defined, but I think it works best not among vastly unequal nation-states, but between smaller regions with robust internal economies.
I
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:45 am
29 Nov 2006
Putting that aside for a moment, you think the embedded labor idea is flimsy- well consider this, China's manufacturing sector is booming largely driven by demand for products abroad- it is booming so much that at least 100 million people have been lifted out of abject poverty and many are entering the middle class- wages are rising- do you not see this as evidence that when people go to Walmart they are in effect hiring Chinese workers- but who just so happen so reside in China? I don't think it's a stretch of the imgaination- I think it is actually quite easy to see and a very real phenomenon.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:36 am
29 Nov 2006
People are, after all, rational actors -- according to market dogma. I don't see how the costs of letting capital seek its highest return should be dismissed as the cost of doing business, while the costs of labor seeking its highest return should justify state interventions, ie, tightly enforced borders, immigration restrictions, etc.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:02 am
29 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:42 am
29 Nov 2006
You ask: "is it that everyone whose job is displaced by a foreigner has a right to seek employment in the country where that good is produced? "
My response: Only insofar as every U.S, textile firm has the right to shutter plants in the US and move them to Mexico -- or, as is happening now, shutter plants in Mexico and move them to Honduras, China, etc.
You still haven't explained why the one right is hallowed and absolute and the other subject to massive government intervention.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:18 am
29 Nov 2006
The issues are relatively simple:
Every country has a right to control its borders and who comes into the country for a variety of reasons and unless you want to question the entire valdity of nation states we must accept that
Nations can choose to trade with each other in multiple ways- both goods and FDI- I think both of these are good and lead to huge societal benefits (even if not every single individual in every single country benefits- there's nothing that can achieve that- that's why we have social safety nets, progressive taxation, etc.)
In my ideal world, I want to see Mexico become a wealthy nation so that people aren't driven by poverty and lack of opportunity to leave their homes and suffer incredible hardship to come work for low-wage U.S. jobs- how to do that? It's quite complex, but anything that restricts trade and FDI is likely going to have the opposite effect. Just look at immigration statistics from Mexico- most are coming from the poorest areas where subsistence agriculture dominates- and in fact not from the areas where people are producing goods to sell to the U.S.
In summary, my views are ultimately pragmatic and non-ideological- more free flow of goods, services, and capital is better than less free flow in just about every aspect.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:22 pm
29 Nov 2006
pass minimum wage legislation for farm workers, this would keep the number of immigrants from reducing the base wage.
Open the borders (as the borders between the US and Mexico and Canada were HISTORICALLY open), and allow people to go back and forth seasonally. One reason US workers don't head for the fields is that the work is seasonal, and the wages don't support their moving (and the localities often don't have adequate support systems for lots of new poor people showing up to stay).
Ummm, Jason, there are Americans who work abroad. In fact it is easier for us to work abroad than it is for most other people to work in the US. I am constantly called on to explain (I don't defend) this hypocrisy. We seem to feel we should be able to live and travel freely, but not others.
Ironically, the "close the border" nuts have made people who come across the borders unable to freely move back and forth, thus encouraging them to settle down for good in the States. Probably not what they planned, but what has happened. (Giving the Darwin award to the anti-immigration movement.)
But let me go on record as opposing a guest worker program. The somewhat/sometime egalitarian ideals of this country don't really need second class citizens (even temporary ones).
If we allow people to come here to work, during the time they are here, they should have full rights and protection, the same as other workers.
There is no more free market in agriculture than there is in computer operating systems (at least in this country). We should protect our local small farmers, but open the markets to allow small farmers elsewhere to compete against our agricultural industrial giants (after all, they can compete in the elsewheres!).
patrick
Permalink
jscorse Posted 9:00 am
30 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:27 am
30 Nov 2006
The inequity comes from the fact that relatively poor Americans (me) can easily travel to places like India and China, but even better off Indians and Chinese have trouble travelling to the US.
And it's not just a class issue, it's a national issue. I would think that as a globalist and free market advocate, you would advocate the same for travel.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:17 pm
30 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:27 pm
30 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:40 am
01 Dec 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:06 am
01 Dec 2006
Permalink