Legal Americans of ALL Nationalities..TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
There are undoubtedly some agricultural functions that can be
achieved
either mechanically or by hand labor. If the labor costs rise a
little,
from their current artificially depressed lows, machinery would move
in.
Erase that idea from your head. Farm machinery manufacturers have
been
working for decades to find ways to harvest certain delicate crops.
If they
could build such things, farmers would buy them in a heartbeat.
*Some* things are amenable to cultivation and
harvesting by entirely mechanical means, but if the
cost of labor is low enough, it will be used in place
of machinery. If the cost of labor rises enough,
machinery will be used.
Take away migrant labor, and you'd better be ready for your kids to
hit the
fields to do the harvesting. Nasty, hot dirty work. It wrecks your
back even
if you're young and in shape. I'll bet a year's pay you'd hide your
kids in
Canada if our government required that kids put in a year of this
type of
work.
Governments in democratic market-oriented societies
don't ever "require" that people do certain tasks,
apart from (occasionally) military service. That's a
pretty stinky red herring you trotted out there.
Europe manages to grow a lot of food, including a lot
for export, without a large pool of illegally resident
farm workers. In addition, an already large and still
growing majority of illegally resident immigrants in
this country do not work in agriculture. We are
increasingly hearing stories of farmers allegedly
unable to get their crops harvested because of labor
shortages, even *with* undocumented immigrants.
The fact is, people are going to have to pay the price
for their food, and that price is probably going to
rise. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People eat
far too much food as it is, and a price rise will get
them to eat less.
Addressing your comments out of order:
The foods people might eat less of are exactly the ones they should eat
more of: Crops that are harvested by human hands.
You're trying to pass off a moral judgment as nutritional advice.
Forget it.
What moral judgement? What people should eat more of? Be careful
answering this.
What's to be careful about? Your language suggests you see some kind of
moral virtue in hand harvesting.
People can eat all kinds of mechanically harvested vegetables. Most
fruits don't lend themselves to mechanical harvesting, but it isn't the
high cost of labor that keeps people from eating fruit.
This isn't a moral judgement about how it's harvested! I don't care how it
is removed from the plant. The point is that much of what is REQUIRED for a
healthy diet cannot be harvested by machines. Take away the hand harvesting,
and say goodbye to a lot of what you see in the stores. Hire people who
insist on real money, and you'd better get happy with paying more per pound
for a lot of the stuff you now take for granted.
Other countries with required service. [snip crap about military
conscription]
I already covered that. We're talking about mandatory work in areas
other than military service. Democracies don't do that.
So, you'd find it wrong if the government said everyone from age 18 to 21
must put in 6 months of work in certain jobs that most people hate.
Yes. The government in a democracy is of, by and for the people, and I
can guarantee you that the people in the United States do not want that.
At the same time, you think it's fine to require military service,
No. It isn't okay. What made you think I believe it to be okay?
Does your attitude perhaps stem from a "military service is honorable" idea,
and other service to the country is less honorable?
I don't believe in involuntary servitude for any purpose.
|