• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Despite economy, farm jobs still go begging

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Yanuck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
4,341
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
VISALIA, Calif. — It's a question rekindled by the recession: Are immigrants taking jobs away from American citizens? In the heart of the nation's biggest farming state, the answer is a resounding no.

Government data analyzed by The Associated Press show most Americans simply don't apply to harvest fruits and vegetables. And the few Americans who do usually don't stay in the fields.

.."It's just not something that most Americans are going to pack up their bags and move here to do," said farmer Steve Fortin, who pays $10.25 an hour to foreign workers to trim strawberry plants at his nursery near the Nevada border.

The AP analysis showed that, from January to June, California farmers posted ads for 1,160 farmworker positions open to U.S. citizens and legal residents. But only 233 people in those categories applied after learning of the jobs through unemployment offices in California, Texas, Nevada and Arizona.

One grower brought on 36. No one else hired any.


"It surprises me, too, but we do put the information out there for the public," said Lucy Ruelas, who manages the California Employment Development Department's agricultural services unit. "If an applicant sees the reality of the job, they might change their mind."

Sometimes, U.S. workers also will turn down the jobs because they don't want their unemployment insurance claims to be affected, or because farm labor positions do not begin for several months, and applicants prefer to be hired immediately, Ruelas said.

Fortin spent $3,000 this year to make sure that domestic workers have first dibs on his jobs in the sparsely populated stretch of the state, advertising in newspapers and on an electronic job registry.

But he did not get any takers, even though he followed the requirements of a little-known, little-used program to bring in foreign farmworkers the legal way — by applying for guest worker visas.

The California figures represent only a small part of the national effort to recruit domestic workers under the H-2A Guest Worker Program, but they provide a snapshot of how hard it is to to get growers to use the program — and to attract Americans to farm labor, even in the San Joaquin Valley, where the average unemployment rate is 15.8 percent.

The majority of farmers rely on illegal labor to harvest their crops, but they can also use the little-known H-2A visa to hire guest workers, as long as they request the workers months in advance of the harvest season and can show that no Americans want the job.

Of the estimated 40,900 full-time farmers and ranchers in California, just 34, including Fortin, petitioned to bring in foreign farmworkers on the visas, according to government data for the first eight months of the year.

The Labor Department did not respond to a request for comment about the findings, and state officials did not immediately provide figures showing the number of domestic workers hired in July and August.

More than half of farmworkers in the United States are illegal immigrants, the Labor Department says. Proponents of tougher immigration laws — as well as the United Farm Workers of America — say farmers are used to a cheap, largely undocumented work force, and if growers raised wages and improved working conditions, the jobs would attract Americans.

So far, an effort by the UFW to get Americans to take farm jobs has been more effective in attracting applicants than the official channels.

The UFW in June launched the "Take Our Jobs Campaign," inviting people to go online and apply. About 8,600 people filled out an application form, but only seven have been placed in farm jobs, UFW President Arturo Rodriguez said.
Some U.S. workers referred for jobs at Fortin's nursery couldn't do the grueling work.
"A few years ago when domestic workers were referred here, we saw absentee problems, and we had people asking for time off after they had just started," he said. "Some were actually planting the plants upside down."
Asked what the agency could do to get more U.S. workers into farm jobs, California Employment Development Department spokeswoman Patti Roberts suggested the UFW could refer applicants to the state or employers, and the state could publicize the openings through public service announcements.
Economists have long argued over whether local workers would take jobs in the field if wages rose.
Philip Martin, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis, said because so few farmers participate in the H-2A program, it's hard to draw national conclusions.
"Recruitment of U.S. workers in this program doesn't work well primarily because employers have already identified who they want to bring in from abroad," Martin said. "I don't think a lot of U.S. workers are going out there looking for a seasonal job paying the minimum wage or a dollar more."
The Labor Department collects the same data about H-2A visa applications for all 50 states but does not make it publicly available.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the AP, the agency offered to provide some records for nearly $11,000 in copying fees, but it was not clear whether the information would show how many Americans had applied for farm labor jobs nationwide. The AP plans to file an administrative appeal.
Even California officials say the guest worker program needs fixing, despite a reform effort announced in February by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis meant to put more domestic workers in crop-picking jobs.
Benjamin Reynosa, who was picking ruby-colored grapes in 90-degree heat last week near Fowler, just south of Fresno, said he often is the only legal U.S. resident on seasonal crews. He said most people hear about the jobs through word of mouth or signs tacked outside rural stores, not the electronic registry.
"I've been working in agriculture for 22 years, and I can tell you there are very few gringos out here," said Reynosa, 49, of Orange Cove, about 30 miles east of Fresno. "If people know English, they go to work in packinghouses or sit in an office."
In Tulare County, where the unemployment rate is nearly 16 percent, job seekers on a recent morning crowded around computers at the job development agency.
"We just don't advertise those kinds of farmworker jobs," said Sandi Miller, program coordinator for the county's work force investment board.
Amid the U.S. Army flyers posted in the lobby, however, under the heading "HOT JOB LEADS," was an ad for a farmworker position, preferring someone with Spanish fluency and tractor maintenance skills.
Miller said later it was the first she had seen such a notice. She hadn't received any applications, she said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39380593/ns/business-personal_finance
 
Is there an alternative?

Maybe if we didn't import "cheap" products from every county in the world that treat us like sh*t- slap us in the face- and refuse to take our products- or put restrictions on ours while doing the opposite with theirs - or file World Trade Organizations against any consumer information laws legally passed by our Congress that gives consumers informed choices of Country of Origin-- the prices of the local product would rise enough to where the producers didn't have to hire illegals or import immigrant workers- or hire semi slave labor ....

Also maybe if all the government subsidies (which I wish would be removed totally) are directed more to the family farm type operation rather than the corporates and the CAFO types that have off farm ownership/labor- we would see a return to the family farm that provides its own labor being competitive...

One thing I totally agree with the Tea Party movement-- we have to start putting AMERICA- and AMERICANS FIRST.....
 
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:

A question Yanuck-- do you think all this immigrant labor you support so much should be required to have health insurance-or better, in the alternative- their employer should cover total health care insurance - or should they just be able to get free maternity care (while delivering anchor babies) and free health care by going to emergency rooms and then walking away without paying- therefore sticking the bill on the bill paying/insurance carrying hospital users and raising the price of health care costs and insurance costs to all... :???:
 
Oldtimer said:
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:

A question Yanuck-- do you think all this immigrant labor you support so much should be required to have health insurance-or better, in the alternative- their employer should cover total health care insurance - or should they just be able to get free maternity care (while delivering anchor babies) and free health care by going to emergency rooms and then walking away without paying- therefore sticking the bill on the bill paying/insurance carrying hospital users and raising the price of health care costs and insurance costs to all... :???:

Gosh...here I thought I posted an article about how the unemployment rate is so high..yet all these jobs go unfilled by American workers because they don't want it to interfere with their dole or its too hard of work. I didn't realize that it was about health care...what was I thinking!! :?
There are a lot of citizens who don't have health care in this country who walk away from medical bills, not just immigrants...personally health care costs could be cut a lot if they started at the hospitals and how much they charge for things....my husband sliced his finger open this summer 8 stiches was $800..my MIL was in the hospital for 3 days, over $8000, after insurance the bill was $1100, if you paid it in full immediately they knocked off 20%....$220 of costs just go away magically? total BS
 
Yanuck said:
Oldtimer said:
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:
A question Yanuck-- do you think all this immigrant labor you support so much should be required to have health insurance-or better, in the alternative- their employer should cover total health care insurance - or should they just be able to get free maternity care (while delivering anchor babies) and free health care by going to emergency rooms and then walking away without paying- therefore sticking the bill on the bill paying/insurance carrying hospital users and raising the price of health care costs and insurance costs to all... :???:
Gosh...here I thought I posted an article about how the unemployment rate is so high..yet all these jobs go unfilled by American workers because they don't want it to interfere with their dole or its too hard of work. I didn't realize that it was about health care...what was I thinking!! :? There are a lot of citizens who don't have health care in this country who walk away from medical bills, not just immigrants...personally health care costs could be cut a lot if they started at the hospitals and how much they charge for things....my husband sliced his finger open this summer 8 stiches was $800..my MIL was in the hospital for 3 days, over $8000, after insurance the bill was $1100, if you paid it in full immediately they knocked off 20%....$220 of costs just go away magically? total BS

Your husband probably paid for 8 immigrants or uninsured employees that just walked away from their similar hospital bills- and left the hospital and us insurance payers companies to pick up the bill.. Which raises my insurance... :roll: :(

If these produce/crop folks can't make it without bringing in cheaper foreign labor- either they should cut back to where they can handle it on the labor available--- pay enough to get non immigrant labor -- or get out of the business....If we didn't import produce and products (that we can produce locally) from every timbuktu country in the world- the prices of those products may be high enough that the producer could pay wages/benefits that native folks would work for - and the government/working class wouldn't have to be subsidizing them ....

You'll never get a Tea Party goldstar for your stance of bringing in more immigrants- legal or illegal..... :wink: :p :lol: :lol:

The Tea Party Pledge (sign below)

We, the undersigned, pledge to vote only for sound candidates regardless of their party. We seek traditional candidates who favor an anti-globalist, America-First platform. We shall only vote for a candidate who:

(1) Supports reductions in legal immigration; favors attrition policies, ending birthright citizenship and terminating chain migration; and opposes amnesty and illegal immigration. (Both legal and illegal immigration are driving down American wages and undermining traditional demographics.)

(2) Supports America First economic policies and opposes free trade (e.g. NAFTA, et al.), which is destroying the American economy. (Historically conservatives opposed free trade, a globalist practice that Karl Marx himself supported.)

(3) Supports national self-defense but opposes interventionism and nation building. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Wilsonian liberalism, not conservatism.

(4) Opposes federal bailouts.

(5) Supports states' sovereignty. Unless a Democrat or Republican candidate meets the criteria above, we pledge not to vote or to vote third party.
 
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:

Do you work a' job'?


Do you need a job picking beans in CA?

I know of friend on his farm that needs help....and he's even in Idaho of al places.
 
What I see is a great opportunity for a job service crew..

yes it is hard work and yes few apply, but many can not afford to move for a temp job that a state away and not available right away..

so what is really needed is a management firm to schedule the work and travel of the workers..

similar to those used by temp workers, truckers, and construction..




migrant workers often have leaders from the community and employ the family.. kids, as well.. and do not comply with our labor laws, our tax laws or few other laws.. so they can afford to work the temp jobs..
 
Yanuck, the article you posted was about the inability of farm owners to hire farm workers, yet oldtimer got on one of his rants and started blaming it all on people that hire foreigners, instead of addressing the article itself.
I know for a fact it is very difficult to hire day labor locally, even paying $15.00 an hour, guess that the esteemed x sherriff,J.P. ,rancher, brand inspector wheat farmer, bar supporting from Montana is able to hire all he wants, after all it is MONTANA and according to him the only thing that matters :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

stay on track oldtimer,

EH?
 
If the unemployment checks were cut off they might fill some of the jobs , but as long as you can live off the tax payers WHY WORK ..
 
jingo2 said:
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:

Do you work a' job'?


Do you need a job picking beans in CA?

I know of friend on his farm that needs help....and he's even in Idaho of al places.

yes Kola I do work, no I don't need a job picking beans in CA, and I'm so glad you have a friend finally!
 
jingo2 said:
Yanuck said:
and perhaps people need to get off their asses and get a job?! :???:

Do you work a' job'?


Do you need a job picking beans in CA?

I know of friend on his farm that needs help....and he's even in Idaho of al places.

You are so clueless it is pathetic,
Of course according to you you never HAD to work a day in your trust fund life, 2 master degrees and 3 bachelors degrees, Cessa Citation X, globe trotting to DIGS around the world,
Must be nice huh kolo
:wink:
 
Once again Government creats the problem- not the solution!
Who implemented the "cheap food policy"?
Un- Constitutional policy fails again!

Until recently, U.S. corn exports destined for Canada faced a $1.65-per-bushel tax. This tax, or import tariff, was Canada's response to claims made by Canadian corn farmers that they are the victims of subsidized and dumped U.S. corn. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal just ruled against the import tariff.
The claim of injury to Canadian corn producers was based on the notion that U.S. corn farmers consistently sell their corn for less than it costs to produce it. That is, cheap U.S. corn is "dumped" in Canada. It was further argued that the reason why corn farmers can sell for such a low price and remain in business is that U.S. subsidies keep them afloat. Implicit in this argument is that if U.S. corn subsidies were eliminated, then U.S. corn production would decrease and the U.S. and Canadian prices of corn would increase. This story is certainly consistent with many arguments made in the United States by supporters of U.S. farm programs. For example, Hembree Brandon writes in the Delta Farm Press:
They [farm payments] really are a food subsidy assistance in disguise, and he [Ken Cook] and every person in this county (sic) who buys food and eats three squares a day are beneficiaries of it--U.S. citizens pay far less for food than anyone on the planet. They are also a food security subsidy in disguise. God help the U.S. if it becomes as dependent on offshore food as it is offshore oil. (December 10, 2004)
Implicit in Mr. Brandon's argument is that U.S. farm production would decline without U.S. farm payments, with resulting increases in commodity and food prices.The argument by Canada that their producers are harmed by low prices resulting from U.S. corn subsidies is similar to Brazil's argument made in their World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute against the U.S. cotton program. Brazil successfully made the case that cotton payments increased U.S. production and lowered world prices to the detriment of Brazilian cotton producers. The WTO panel ruled that the United States needed to eliminate its export subsidy program, called Step 2, and it needed to eliminate programs that increase production and suppress world prices.
What does all of this portend for U.S. corn farmers? If U.S. farm programs really are a "cheap food" policy in disguise, then Canadian corn farmers would seem to have a valid argument that they have been harmed by U.S. subsidies. Is this argument valid? If so, then is the U.S. corn program as vulnerable to a negative WTO panel ruling as was cotton?
Farm Programs and Cheap Food
U.S. farmers often justify farm program payments by linking the payments to the small share of U.S. disposable income that is spent on food. Those who make this linkage attribute high productivity and high production at the farm level to program payments. The availability of less-expensive raw ingredients then decreases production costs of food processors and manufacturers, leading to lower food prices. If this story is true, then a removal of farm program payments should lead to higher food prices. Logically, the largest increases should show up in food products in which currently subsidized raw ingredients (corn, wheat, or soybeans) make up the largest share of total production costs.
A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.
Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.
It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth.
Supporters of farm programs who incorrectly justify them as providing cheap food to U.S. consumers should realize that they are providing ready ammunition to those countries who want to attack U.S. farm subsidies as being harmful to their domestic producers. After all, U.S. and world prices move together because the commodities that receive U.S. subsidies are widely traded on international markets. If farm payments reduce U.S. prices, then they also reduce world prices, which means that farmers around the world are hurt by U.S. farm payments. Given the very large commodity price changes that would be required for a cheap food policy to be a reality, does use of this rationale for U.S. farm programs really serve U.S. producer interests?
A concrete example of how this type of argument can be used against U.S. producer interests is the compelling argument that Brazil used in the cotton case that was obtained directly from supporters of the U.S. cotton program. In testimony about the impacts of stricter payment limits, supporters of lax payment limits argued that stricter payment limits would cause a significant decrease in U.S. cotton production. Put another way, cotton payments cause cotton acreage to increase, which is exactly what Brazil was arguing.
Do U.S. Subsidies Decrease Commodity Prices?
Even if farm subsidies do not lead to cheap food, they can lead to cheap commodities, which potentially makes U.S. farm programs vulnerable to further WTO panel judgments.
One of the key lessons of Economics 101 is that it is a simple matter for government to get more of anything it wants: simply subsidize its production. Although final 2005 payments have not yet been determined, payments to U.S. corn producers are expected to average 26.7 percent of market revenue over the three crop years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Total corn payments over these three years are expected to be $20.5 billion. Experts supporting Canada's position in the ongoing corn tariff case point to this 26.7 percent subsidy rate as prima facie evidence that U.S. corn payments increase production, thereby lowering world corn prices. But, as is so often the case, reality is more complicated than a simple application of a lesson learned in an introductory economics course.
The first nuance is that 31 percent of U.S. corn payments over this period (direct payments) are specifically designed not to influence U.S. corn plantings. These payments do not depend on prices, production levels, acreage levels, or even whether farmers plant a crop. The one restriction is that farmers cannot plant fruits, tree nuts, or vegetables on land that qualifies for these payments. This "fruit and vegetable exclusion" is relatively unimportant for corn, because the majority of corn land is best suited for feed grain production. If we remove direct payments from the calculations, then corn payments drop to 18.5 percent of market revenue--still a large number.
The second nuance we need to account for is that 43 percent of the payments remaining after direct payments are removed are also designed to have minimal influence on planting decisions. Farmers cannot change the size of countercyclical payments for corn by changing acreage or production levels, so these payments provide no direct incentive to plant more corn when market prices are expected to be low. However, countercyclical payments increase when market prices drop, so they do provide some price protection to farmers. Thus, although nobody knows for sure, most economists believe that these payments provide some incentive for farmers to plant corn. Analysts with the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute assume that $10.00 of expected countercyclical payments per acre provides the same production incentive as $2.50 of expected market revenue. Accordingly, if we remove 75 percent of countercyclical payments, then corn payments drop to 11.7 percent of market revenue--still a significant number but fast becoming less significant.
There is near unanimity among economists that increases in expected marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments will increase planted acreage because they are paid on all current production. However, it would be a mistake simply to conclude that farmers increased corn acreage from 2003 to 2005 because farmers expected an 11.7 percent average boost in revenue from corn payments. We have to look at market conditions at the time that farmers decide what to plant to determine the influence of the programs.
As previously discussed in this publication, producers obtain the largest benefit from the current set of farm programs in bumper-crop/low-price years. We had back-to-back bumper crops in 2004 and 2005, with 2004 being the largest increase over trend yields in history. By definition, bumper crops are unexpected. Thus, the size of the payments that arrived was also unexpected. An additional surprise factor in 2005 was the large and negative impact of Hurricane Katrina on local prices at harvest time. Most corn farmers took advantage of these low prices to lock in large windfall payments. Thus, we also need to reduce the 11.7 percent payment rate by the degree of "surprise" before we can conclude that U.S. commodity programs significantly changed farmers' acreage decisions.
This discussion is not an attempt to minimize the impacts of U.S. farm subsidies on farmers' acreage decisions. Rather, it is meant to illustrate how complicated estimation of the impacts actually is. Farmers base their decisions about what and how much to plant on numerous factors, including rotation considerations, production costs, expected market prices, availability of crop insurance, and expected benefits from farm programs. The complicated nature of these decisions makes it quite difficult to determine if U.S. farm programs for crops other than cotton are vulnerable to a WTO case against them on the basis of price suppression. The role that these programs play in farmers' planting decisions varies across crops, regions, and crop years. Simple "rules of thumb" that use total payment levels as a guide or the belief that the programs work as a cheap food policy are inadequate measures of the impacts of farm payments on U.S. supply and international commodity prices. ♦
http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article1.aspx
 
Oldtimer said:
Yanuck said:
Oldtimer said:
A question Yanuck-- do you think all this immigrant labor you support so much should be required to have health insurance-or better, in the alternative- their employer should cover total health care insurance - or should they just be able to get free maternity care (while delivering anchor babies) and free health care by going to emergency rooms and then walking away without paying- therefore sticking the bill on the bill paying/insurance carrying hospital users and raising the price of health care costs and insurance costs to all... :???:
Gosh...here I thought I posted an article about how the unemployment rate is so high..yet all these jobs go unfilled by American workers because they don't want it to interfere with their dole or its too hard of work. I didn't realize that it was about health care...what was I thinking!! :? There are a lot of citizens who don't have health care in this country who walk away from medical bills, not just immigrants...personally health care costs could be cut a lot if they started at the hospitals and how much they charge for things....my husband sliced his finger open this summer 8 stiches was $800..my MIL was in the hospital for 3 days, over $8000, after insurance the bill was $1100, if you paid it in full immediately they knocked off 20%....$220 of costs just go away magically? total BS

Your husband probably paid for 8 immigrants or uninsured employees that just walked away from their similar hospital bills- and left the hospital and us insurance payers companies to pick up the bill.. Which raises my insurance... :roll: :(

If these produce/crop folks can't make it without bringing in cheaper foreign labor- either they should cut back to where they can handle it on the labor available--- pay enough to get non immigrant labor -- or get out of the business....If we didn't import produce and products (that we can produce locally) from every timbuktu country in the world- the prices of those products may be high enough that the producer could pay wages/benefits that native folks would work for - and the government/working class wouldn't have to be subsidizing them ....

You'll never get a Tea Party goldstar for your stance of bringing in more immigrants- legal or illegal..... :wink: :p :lol: :lol:

The Tea Party Pledge (sign below)

We, the undersigned, pledge to vote only for sound candidates regardless of their party. We seek traditional candidates who favor an anti-globalist, America-First platform. We shall only vote for a candidate who:

(1) Supports reductions in legal immigration; favors attrition policies, ending birthright citizenship and terminating chain migration; and opposes amnesty and illegal immigration. (Both legal and illegal immigration are driving down American wages and undermining traditional demographics.)

(2) Supports America First economic policies and opposes free trade (e.g. NAFTA, et al.), which is destroying the American economy. (Historically conservatives opposed free trade, a globalist practice that Karl Marx himself supported.)

(3) Supports national self-defense but opposes interventionism and nation building. The transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Wilsonian liberalism, not conservatism.

(4) Opposes federal bailouts.

(5) Supports states' sovereignty. Unless a Democrat or Republican candidate meets the criteria above, we pledge not to vote or to vote third party.

Wouldn't it make sense to support the states that want their borders controlled? Send in the NG in an amount that would do some good.
 

Latest posts

Top