Letters to the Editor
-
desperately seeking an excuse
This is a stretch, even for this column.
Not investing in more education, job training, etc. is always short-sighted. But people live in the short-term and, as the saying goes, in the long-term we're all dead. Balancing the present and future will always be a struggle, and is something that can be discussed without desperately linking it to the inevitable spread of technology.
Yep, I said inevitable. Even if these growers in Oregon don't adopt it others will and with adoption comes efficiencies and further adoption. Regions can and will boycott this "unnatural" picking procedure, but take a look at how well France's wine industry is doing if you want see what happens when commodity producers avoid "innovation", for whatever reason.
Further why would you possibly believe it is the responsibility of this country to determine our production techniques in such a way as to shepherd citizens of developing countries around the globe. It is not our responsibility to provide jobs for citizens of other countries. There may have been a time when that was true, but our citizens have made it pretty clear that's not what they want now. Shockingly, I would argue that allowing U.S. farmers to better compete in the global marketplace is a good thing for U.S citizens, provided the gains aren't being derived from toxic sources, be they chemicals or subsidies. Using technology to free yourself of labor demands is different than dumping low cost GMO crops on developing markets, strip mining, clear cutting, patenting compounds from indigenous plants, or any of a host of the other truly evil economic actions we support.
-
Inequality and Immigration
First:
"In fact, if more mechanized harvesting of crops that have hitherto been out-of-bounds for robots leads to greater efficiencies for American farmers, allowing them to compete even more effectively with farmers in developing nations, it could conceivably make those farmers even worse off, and contribute even more to their motivation to pick up and move."
Yes, assuming that there is competition in Mexico for the same types of grapes grown in Oregon. But even assuming that is the case, why would displaced workers in Mexico (or wherever) with a particular skill-set that has been displaced by machinery want to immigrate to a country in which there are no jobs that take advantage of their skill-sets? Perhaps this chain of events might cause a couple more illegal immigrants, but I suspect I could count the number of my fingers and toes.
While Katz' and Goldin's treatment of the issue may be new, the ideas that motive their works are not new. There are a couple of dimensions to this problem of inequality: the first is whether or not inequality in income is a problem--some reputable folks seem to think that the increase in income inequality is in large part generated by middle and upper-middle class workers taking voluntary extended leaves from the workforce (to have babies, pursue other interests, etc.). Furthermore, consumption inequality, sometimes used as a proxy for welfare inequality, has NOT increased over the last couple of years. See Heathcoate et all (2005).
For a good treatment of the other dimensions of the issue of capital replacing labor and wage inequality, Daron Acemoglu has a good paper "Technical change, Inequality, and the Labor Market" in the Journal of Economic Literature (2001) that summarizes the prevailing thoughts (as of eight years ago, anyway) in the field. It might put the Katz research in context of all of the issues being examined. I apologize that I've mentioned this before, but the same kinds of concerns keep being raised here, and I really think these two papers would add a lot of perspective instead of rehashing the same, tired arguments.
-
as usual
a smart lil column. thanks, andrew.
-
effects on farmers, too
If you're just looking at grapes, immigrant farmers and Mexico, then yes, the criticisms of this article make sense. Farmers in other countries compete with many of our ag products, (and our subsidies), not just grapes. They do not just come here to work on more farms. They come in to take up any job they can find that can give them what they need. It's certainly more complex than just grapes, 'illegal' immigrants and wineries.
But in these discussions let's not forget that it takes a lot of money to invest in these technologies. There are wineries all over the place out here in Oregon and Washington and I'll bet that very few of the smaller ones can afford a grape picking machine. Which will mean that smaller wineries will be left behind. Another small farmer out of business... leading to more job loss and not just for immigrants. The research that is looking at the role that technology plays in distribution of wealth and marginalization is a long time coming. Ask the small farmers around the country, indeed the world, how easy it is to adapt technologies without loans and luck. Then what do they do? Lose the farm to big agricultural businesses.
-
Thanks!
Andrew: thanks for standing up for the poor, albeit crooked, growers.
However, you don't seem to understand the word "anti-immigration". Nor do you seem to understand that mechanization means that jobs will have to be created to design, produce, market, and tend the machines, and that those jobs will be more in line with a modern economy (vs something from the age of feudalism). Those machines could even be sold to Mexico and other countries to help them out.
As for alleviating the pressure northward, shine a light for us all. Instead of allowing the Mexican government to avoid their responsibilities to their own people, oppose illegal immigration.
-
This is an old debate with one new variable.
Mechanical grape harvesting has been around for decades, and the issue has always been about saving on labor costs and eliminating labor hassles. The only difference here is that there's now new emphasis on the legal status of the workers.
In the end, I doubt that we'll ever see human pickers replaced by machine harvesting for the production of quality wines. With humans you can: plant your vines at any density (plants per hectare); plant them on nearly any terrain (terraces, steep hillsides, etc); and prune, train and trellis them in any way. All of those factors will be considered by an estate that wants to get the very best out of their vines.
But a grower is extremely limited by the needs of mechanical harvesters, which require wide rows, specific pruning/training of vines, and broad alleys at the ends of each row (for turning around). Never mind that mechanical harvesters either shake the vines or paddle at the fruit, or both-- brutal treatment that typically injures both the vines and the grapes and is thus detrimental to quality.
Those requirements for the machines mean that most vineyards that are currently being harvested by hand will not be suitable for mechanical harvesting. To make a vineyard suitable, existing vines would need to be grubbed up; the vineyard would need to be replanted according to the harvester's needs; and the owner would need to wait at least three years before the new vines began producing fruit of decent quality, at which point he would finally be able to begin making wine again.
I can't imagine anyone being willing to sacrifice so much time, money and (most likely) wine quality, all for the sake of getting rid of a few dozen illegal/undocumented seasonal workers.