"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...

..................Some crops cannot be harvested by machines. If they
could be, the machines would exist. .............


not if the current alternative is cheaper, if I can have fruit hand
picked for less than the ammortized cost of a machine then there is no
incentive for such a machine to exist.

. ......No machine will harvest them safely, at least not until
robotics are much further along. A long list of other crops are also
too delicate for anything but human handling......

Again at what relative cost?

as long as we have artificially cheap labor innovation in those fields
will be stunted

no machine could ever fly,
one could ever fly faster than the speed of sound,
it would be impossbile to send a man to the moon & return safely
how could one ever operate on a persons heart
active suspension in a production automobile? too expensive!


what else do we put on the list?


The combine was invented in the late 1940s. There was plenty of cheap
labor
available at the time, as there has been ever since. In that time period,
farmers have immediately embraced machinery, regardless of labor costs.
There are benefits which go beyond human labor costs.


Doug-

I get the feeling you deny the existance of economic forces in the
world.

The whole reason for application of capital is the improvement of
productivity; that is, output per unit input.

That's correct. But, it's not applicable to every situation. If you
disagree, then tell me why most corn is harvested by machines?

Or, maybe a more direct question, just so we don't head down a blind alley
talking about two different things: Are you saying that the lack of machines
for harvesting strawberries is due to the fact that there's no demand for
them yet?



In that time period, farmers have immediately embraced machinery,
regardless of labor costs.

must have been their altruistic side making those decisions

No, but I suspect that the reasons *could* be psychological in nature. I
know about a dozen farmers, and most of them share an interesting trait with
home gardeners: A preference for working alone. A machine eliminates dealing
with the annoyances of supervising employees.


just like people in SoCal stopped mowing their own lawns, because it
wasn't worth their time.

If the illegals disappeared, lawn mowing would become more costly and
some people would pay more for legals, some would mow their own, some
would replace their lawns with low maint gardens.

it's all about choices, "economic" choices (even if the folks making
the choice fail to see it) time vs money; DIY or job it
out.........millions & millions of choices

and the illegal alien pool of cheap labor skew the choices in favor of
labor over alternatives


but it seems like I won't be able to convince you.........

Here, I'll repeat my question: Why have so many crops been harvested
exclusively by machine, as far back as the 1940s? It's more than the novelty
of the machines, or a casual choice on the part of farmers.