As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Labor and Unions]: Workers of the world, unite!

17475767880

Posts

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Yeah a family farm that doesnt employ anyone doesnt really have any relevance to a discussion of agricultural employment practices.

    Only insomuch as it was claimed that all farmers are capitalist scum who exploit labor. Wherein it was proposed that wages are low because capitalists don’t think labor is human and that there are no other reasons for low wages.

    Except “No other reasons for low wages” works more often than not as a way to cover for exploitation of farm labor, instead of interrogating why things are as they are

    Because if low wages are just the results of market forces, well, then there’s nothing really to be done, because that’s just the way the market works. Maybe tinker at the sides here and there, maybe a subsidy or two that just coincidentally manages to disappear into the pockets of ownership without ever making it to the field hands. But nothing that ultimately requires a systemic change.

    But if we confront the idea that labor is exploited by the owners of the business in question*, and that the revenue generated is inequitably distributed, then we have to sit down with some uncomfortable questions about the corruption within those systems and how to remedy them, which ultimately calls into question established social hierarchies between labor and farm ownership.


    * https://newrepublic.com/article/155403/american-farming-runs-exploitation
    In the past decade alone, the H-2A program has tripled the number of workers being flown and bussed in to work American fields, with more than half landing in five agriculture-heavy states: Georgia, Florida, Washington, North Carolina, and California. Looking outside of the H-2A system, which farm owners have described as burdensome due to the program’s required paperwork and few existing labor requirements, undocumented workers have been estimated by the USDA to constitute nearly half of the industry’s entire workforce. In North Carolina, Latino workers make up roughly 90 percent of all farmworkers. And despite—or, more likely, because of—the fact that the entire industry would instantly crumble if this workforce was cut off, these workers are allotted even fewer rights than those who walked into the fields nearly a century ago.

    The living conditions for many of these workers are unsafe and overcrowded. Their wages, while potentially reaching high hourly rates depending on their individual production rates, ultimately amount to paltry annual salaries when compared to the strenuous nature of their work. Agriculture easily owns the highest fatality rate among all American industries. And while groups like the Farm Labor Organizing Committee work diligently to provide union services and protections for these marginalized workers, even states with Democratic governors, like North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, continue to sign union-busting laws into effect in order to stifle these efforts. As a result of an entire industry and government being lined up against them, just 2.1 percent of agricultural workers are part of a union—a shame given this nation’s history of grassroots-led fieldworkers unions, like the Farmer’s Alliance or the Southern Tenant Farmers Union. And in the absence of effective advocacy, workers remain at the mercy of employers’ attempts to squeeze out a higher profit margin: In March, a federal judge rejected an attempt by an agricultural employers association to further lower the wages of thousands of H-2A workers.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DarkPrimusMayabird
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Uhh no. That is now how “the market” works. We absolutely can do things to change how the market works. Step one in making systemic changes is understanding how the system operates.

    But if you “deal with the corruption” without actually understanding how the system works youre going to fail. Because you arent likely to be making systemic changes.

    wbBv3fj.png
    shrykeLord_AsmodeuszagdrobJebus314DamnItCohaagenLanlaornGnome-InterruptusNetscapeMoridin889
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Uhh no. That is now how “the market” works. We absolutely can do things to change how the market works. Step one in making systemic changes is understanding how the system operates.

    But if you “deal with the corruption” without actually understanding how the system works youre going to fail. Because you arent likely to be making systemic changes.

    You’re telling me that in America, the market is not heavily built upon the exploitation of Labor by Capital, which seeks at every turn to disempower and cheapen the value of said labor? Or that agriculture in America is not based heavily upon this very dynamic to a toxic degree, creating a crisis wherein mostly migrant labor is abused to provide our foodstuffs for a bare pittance, while subsidies that exist ultimately pad the pockets of the ownership class instead of making their way into wages, benefits and safer conditions for said mostly migrant farm labor?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    CalicaMan in the MistsMayabird
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Uhh no. That is now how “the market” works. We absolutely can do things to change how the market works. Step one in making systemic changes is understanding how the system operates.

    But if you “deal with the corruption” without actually understanding how the system works youre going to fail. Because you arent likely to be making systemic changes.

    You’re telling me that in America, the market is not heavily built upon the exploitation of Labor by Capital, which seeks at every turn to disempower and cheapen the value of said labor? Or that agriculture in America is not based heavily upon this very dynamic to a toxic degree, creating a crisis wherein mostly migrant labor is abused to provide our foodstuffs for a bare pittance, while subsidies that exist ultimately pad the pockets of the ownership class instead of making their way into wages, benefits and safer conditions for said mostly migrant farm labor?

    I am saying that you’re looking at 1+1 and trying to make the result 3. It will not ever be 3 unless you can change either the 1s and/or the +.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Netscape
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Uhh no. That is now how “the market” works. We absolutely can do things to change how the market works. Step one in making systemic changes is understanding how the system operates.

    But if you “deal with the corruption” without actually understanding how the system works youre going to fail. Because you arent likely to be making systemic changes.

    You’re telling me that in America, the market is not heavily built upon the exploitation of Labor by Capital, which seeks at every turn to disempower and cheapen the value of said labor? Or that agriculture in America is not based heavily upon this very dynamic to a toxic degree, creating a crisis wherein mostly migrant labor is abused to provide our foodstuffs for a bare pittance, while subsidies that exist ultimately pad the pockets of the ownership class instead of making their way into wages, benefits and safer conditions for said mostly migrant farm labor?

    I am saying that you’re looking at 1+1 and trying to make the result 3. It will not ever be 3 unless you can change either the 1s and/or the +.

    And how do you believe I am doing that? Particularly that refutes the various sources I have been citing over the course of the farm labor argument, to say nothing of the other posters who have pointed out the exploitation that is standard for farm labor in the United States

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    The problem and the whole tangent is that when you refer to all farmers as 'cartoonishly evil' or with condescending derision most people aren't thinking of agri-mega corps.

    To some degree, evidenced by the very people in this thread, think of the real actual farmers they personally know and relate to who are just people getting by and not even especially successful even by local small business standards. A successful farm is a multigenerational investment and most of the paper wealth is inaccessible and illiquid. When people don't even have a sense of what is a small / large farm or typical amount of property but then deride farmers as evil it immediately turns off a group that in theory should be natural allies to labor.

    Oh yeah I see the problem. You took a statement about the agricultural industry's hiring practices as a condemnation of all farmers regardless of whether they even actually employ anyone.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    painfulPleasance
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Uhh no. That is now how “the market” works. We absolutely can do things to change how the market works. Step one in making systemic changes is understanding how the system operates.

    But if you “deal with the corruption” without actually understanding how the system works youre going to fail. Because you arent likely to be making systemic changes.

    You’re telling me that in America, the market is not heavily built upon the exploitation of Labor by Capital, which seeks at every turn to disempower and cheapen the value of said labor? Or that agriculture in America is not based heavily upon this very dynamic to a toxic degree, creating a crisis wherein mostly migrant labor is abused to provide our foodstuffs for a bare pittance, while subsidies that exist ultimately pad the pockets of the ownership class instead of making their way into wages, benefits and safer conditions for said mostly migrant farm labor?

    I am saying that you’re looking at 1+1 and trying to make the result 3. It will not ever be 3 unless you can change either the 1s and/or the +.

    And how do you believe I am doing that? Particularly that refutes the various sources I have been citing over the course of the farm labor argument, to say nothing of the other posters who have pointed out the exploitation that is standard for farm labor in the United States

    Well to start “Crop scientists” on Twitter are not experts on labor dynamics. And “it’s all the social Hierarchy” isn’t a serious analysis. Unfortunately explaining exactly how wrong you are would take far too long for thanksgiving. But the thrust of it is that you’re focusing on individual motivations which you have inferred from results and not what drives systemic action.

    Maybe in a few weeks? I can get to it but like. It’s on the level of explaining marxism to you and maybe even longer so the level of effort and buy in is pretty big since I would have to go unto the base assumptions that you make in addition to the way you think. (You’re more or less at the “not even wrong” stage). I am not a teacher so I don’t have materials prepared that would get you through an introductory economics course let alone one tailored to dealing with correcting the errors of your specific worldview.

    I am not sure you’re strictly wrong in that there is an ideological component but the ideological component would be that of management theory (and probably generally Christian/Republican economic religion) and not that of corruptive dehumanizing social hierarchy.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Netscape
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    The problem and the whole tangent is that when you refer to all farmers as 'cartoonishly evil' or with condescending derision most people aren't thinking of agri-mega corps.

    To some degree, evidenced by the very people in this thread, think of the real actual farmers they personally know and relate to who are just people getting by and not even especially successful even by local small business standards. A successful farm is a multigenerational investment and most of the paper wealth is inaccessible and illiquid. When people don't even have a sense of what is a small / large farm or typical amount of property but then deride farmers as evil it immediately turns off a group that in theory should be natural allies to labor.

    Oh yeah I see the problem. You took a statement about the agricultural industry's hiring practices as a condemnation of all farmers regardless of whether they even actually employ anyone.

    I will clearly state that I condemn all farmers for the state of automation and the agricultural industry's hiring practices. We use automation to replace labor costs when the cost for automation becomes cheaper than the cost of continued use of labor. The industries that are automated have done so because machines can do the work more cheaply than manual labor. This puts labor in the place of competing with automation for work, and the only tool that labor has to compete with is cost. So labor either accepts less pay or the industry becomes automated.

    This also leads to things like illegal immigrant workers, because the farms can pay them less than minimum wage since they aren't protected by the state. Because after a certain lower threshold, US citizens and legal residents simply won't do the work.

    painfulPleasance
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    shrykezagdrobElvenshaeDamnItCohaagenLanlaornMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusMvrckThawmusNetscapeLord_AsmodeusMoridin889
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Automation is great. The underlying assumption is that the pool of available work is zero sum, i.e. when capital replaces labor then labor has less jobs. But history shows that to be a false assumption.

    shrykezagdrobMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeDamnItCohaagenLanlaornGnome-Interruptusenc0reLord_AsmodeusMoridin889
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Automation is great. The underlying assumption is that the pool of available work is zero sum, i.e. when capital replaces labor then labor has less jobs. But history shows that to be a false assumption.

    Even funnier is that the advances in agricultural technology are a good example of this. When we needed less people to make food those people didn't stop having work to do they just did other work.

    zagdrobShadowhopeMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeLanlaornGnome-InterruptusNetscapeLord_AsmodeusMoridin889
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    Monwyn was warned for this.
    Heffling wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    The problem and the whole tangent is that when you refer to all farmers as 'cartoonishly evil' or with condescending derision most people aren't thinking of agri-mega corps.

    To some degree, evidenced by the very people in this thread, think of the real actual farmers they personally know and relate to who are just people getting by and not even especially successful even by local small business standards. A successful farm is a multigenerational investment and most of the paper wealth is inaccessible and illiquid. When people don't even have a sense of what is a small / large farm or typical amount of property but then deride farmers as evil it immediately turns off a group that in theory should be natural allies to labor.

    Oh yeah I see the problem. You took a statement about the agricultural industry's hiring practices as a condemnation of all farmers regardless of whether they even actually employ anyone.

    I will clearly state that I condemn all farmers for the state of automation and the agricultural industry's hiring practices. We use automation to replace labor costs when the cost for automation becomes cheaper than the cost of continued use of labor. The industries that are automated have done so because machines can do the work more cheaply than manual labor. This puts labor in the place of competing with automation for work, and the only tool that labor has to compete with is cost. So labor either accepts less pay or the industry becomes automated.

    This also leads to things like illegal immigrant workers, because the farms can pay them less than minimum wage since they aren't protected by the state. Because after a certain lower threshold, US citizens and legal residents simply won't do the work.

    Guys, I found it, The Dumbest Post

    ElJeffe on
    uH3IcEi.png
    ElvenshaeZibblsnrtHappylilElfLanlaornMan in the MistsNetscape
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

    Break the spinning jennies, return to life pre-Watt

    uH3IcEi.png
    ElvenshaeSmrtnikZibblsnrtLanlaornAntinumeric
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Ban the horse collar and steel plow, they make farming too efficient

    uH3IcEi.png
    ElvenshaeZibblsnrtLanlaornNetscapeAntinumeric
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

    It is shared among all, as evinced by household spending as a percentage of income:
    wjtfk7qzu09c.png

    shrykeMonwynHefflingLanlaorntinwhiskersMartini_PhilosopherNetscapeLord_Asmodeus
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

    Break the spinning jennies, return to life pre-Watt

    To be clear, I'm not against automation. I'm against our current lack of societal safety nets that is due to the efforts of the capital owners.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    I think what we just saw was a microcosmic reenactment of the history of the Luddite movement all the way through to society’s misinterpretation of the Luddite movement, all in under ten posts

    Eerie, it is

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    HefflingVegemytepainfulPleasanceMayabirdHacksaw
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

    Break the spinning jennies, return to life pre-Watt

    To be clear, I'm not against automation. I'm against our current lack of societal safety nets that is due to the efforts of the capital owners.

    Okay but that's not what you actually said. You explicitly said that automation is bad because it pushes out manual labour

    Phoenix-DshrykeMonwynSmrtnikGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeLord_Asmodeus
  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    I think what we just saw was a microcosmic reenactment of the history of the Luddite movement all the way through to society’s misinterpretation of the Luddite movement, all in under ten posts

    Eerie, it is

    I think that's probably the limitations of forums like this where one might be responding to a very specific claim that may not have been part of the original conversation but ends up being treated as part of that conversation.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    What? You're condemning all farmers for use of automation and machines?

    You realize that having a tiny percentage of your population working in farming is a good thing right?

    This is true if the productivity gains are shared among all, but currently those gains go to the capital owners, of which farm owners are a portion. It isn't true if the now unemployed are left to starve or die in ditches due to lack of healthcare.

    Break the spinning jennies, return to life pre-Watt

    To be clear, I'm not against automation. I'm against our current lack of societal safety nets that is due to the efforts of the capital owners.

    Okay but that's not what you actually said. You explicitly said that automation is bad because it pushes out manual labour

    What I said is:
    I will clearly state that I condemn all farmers for the state of automation and the agricultural industry's hiring practices. We use automation to replace labor costs when the cost for automation becomes cheaper than the cost of continued use of labor. The industries that are automated have done so because machines can do the work more cheaply than manual labor. This puts labor in the place of competing with automation for work, and the only tool that labor has to compete with is cost. So labor either accepts less pay or the industry becomes automated.

    This also leads to things like illegal immigrant workers, because the farms can pay them less than minimum wage since they aren't protected by the state. Because after a certain lower threshold, US citizens and legal residents simply won't do the work.

    I specifically called out that I condemned the farmers, not automation.

    painfulPleasance
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    You condemned the farmers because they automate and for the effect this has on their hiring practices… so I am not seeing the split in this hair.

    We have also been over why migrant labor is used and migrant labor is not “led to being illegal” because of automation practices. Illegal immigration leads to exploitation but illegal immigration occurs exogenously from farm automation*

    *well maybe not entirely but increased farm automation would tend to produce downward pressure on farm labor immigration

    wbBv3fj.png
    Gnome-InterruptusSageinaRageshrykeMoridin889
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    Farming is complicated and generalizing it is a bad idea.

    What are you farming? Almonds in California with grandfathered water rights? Congratulations, you're destroying the state water table and making yourself very rich using relatively little actual land.

    Chickens? You're using even less land than almonds! However, now you're basically indebted to one of only three chicken purchasers and have to buy supplies from them like a franchise. You're probably drowning in debt and in the equivalent of a payday advance loan on your property.

    Do you just like claiming you have a farm so you can ride horsies and drive a big truck as a lifestyle choice? Probably part of the problem too, but who knows how much?

    Do you get subsidies? Are you in a co-op? Marijuana? Hemp? Monsanto?

    Farming is tied to labor, but it's not necessarily capital - or exploitative. But it might be? Sometimes?

    The entire industry is a fucking nightmare and the only people who seem to benefit from it are the banks, John Deere and big agriculture taking subsidies. Everyone else is a varying degree of fucked and trying to get by, but they might also be awful people who hire migrants under the table.

    What do I know?

    I picked cantaloupe once in high school at a friend of mines family farm. They grew a variety of things and tried to make ends meet with farmers markets and everything else, but still had to sell off bits of land every few years and take out loans to cover equipment. The guy who would buy the land was a neighboring farm that was only growing almonds.

    Picking cantaloupe was the hardest job I've ever had. It was 103 degrees and there is no shade in a field. I lasted an hour before I felt like I was going to die. Dismissing the labor of the people who work the fields, whether they're the owners or seasonal workers is kind of gross. Even if the industry is also kind of fucked up.

    dispatch.o on
    DarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherBloodsheedElvenshaeShadowfireSmrtnikCalicaHefflingTynnanMan in the MistsShadowhopeJragghenMatevDamnItCohaagen
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    Wow this contentious.

    But Someone had asked how farmers afford to startup after they get their land. It’s actually not that expensive. It costs 0 up front.

    The USDA will provide a Loan for those costs. The loan won’t cover the cost of the land itself (that’s a separate mortgage). But it will cover seed, some livestock, water, equipment rentals, equipment purchase, family living expenses . Honestly a bunch of other minor stuff. So for a large family farm which I have several family members with farms and ranches the up front cost is 0. They take out a loan based on the amount of land they have and then worth the harvest they pay the loan back. And hopefully they make money. If they make enough money they use that to hire some help during spring and fall.

    And for Texas, Kansas and Colorado the rural land is quite cheap.

    zepherin on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    sig.gif
    dispatch.oElvenshaeFencingsaxshrykeHappylilElfNobodyShadowfireSmrtnikLord_AsmodeusHefflingMoridin889ShadowhopeQanamil
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Styrofoam SammichHacksawAngelHedgiezepherinHefflingMan in the MistsMatev
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    Depending on the type of farming, it's also got a heavy socialism tilt. Except only for states that grow things that can buy them influence and votes. Corn needs to go the fuck away. It's just too big a thing to sort out as an industry one way or the other. "farming" is like saying "retail", "warehouse" or "food service" without specifying an employer.

    dispatch.o on
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsaxzagdrobShadowhope
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    That is well and good, but when you have people saying all farmers are cartoonishly evil / condemning all farmers that is what is going to stick for most people and completely erases any subsequent message you are trying to advance.

    Fuck all of you and now listen to how our philosophy will make things better is going to get lost at 'all of you'. Its not too far off the messaging problem of The Jungle, where the entire manifesto is completely forgotten and overshadowed by the 'holy shit we are eating what' portion of the book.

    ElvenshaeShadowhope
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    That is well and good, but when you have people saying all farmers are cartoonishly evil / condemning all farmers that is what is going to stick for most people and completely erases any subsequent message you are trying to advance.

    Fuck all of you and now listen to how our philosophy will make things better is going to get lost at 'all of you'. Its not too far off the messaging problem of The Jungle, where the entire manifesto is completely forgotten and overshadowed by the 'holy shit we are eating what' portion of the book.

    I didnt say all farmers are cartoonishly evil. I said the industry is. You're getting upset over arguments you made up.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    That is well and good, but when you have people saying all farmers are cartoonishly evil / condemning all farmers that is what is going to stick for most people and completely erases any subsequent message you are trying to advance.

    Fuck all of you and now listen to how our philosophy will make things better is going to get lost at 'all of you'. Its not too far off the messaging problem of The Jungle, where the entire manifesto is completely forgotten and overshadowed by the 'holy shit we are eating what' portion of the book.

    I didnt say all farmers are cartoonishly evil. I said the industry is. You're getting upset over arguments you made up.

    Not everything is about you.
    Heffling wrote: »
    I will clearly state that I condemn all farmers...

    Elvenshae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    That is well and good, but when you have people saying all farmers are cartoonishly evil / condemning all farmers that is what is going to stick for most people and completely erases any subsequent message you are trying to advance.

    Fuck all of you and now listen to how our philosophy will make things better is going to get lost at 'all of you'. Its not too far off the messaging problem of The Jungle, where the entire manifesto is completely forgotten and overshadowed by the 'holy shit we are eating what' portion of the book.

    I didnt say all farmers are cartoonishly evil. I said the industry is. You're getting upset over arguments you made up.

    Not everything is about you.
    Heffling wrote: »
    I will clearly state that I condemn all farmers...

    You're clearly referencing my critizicism of the ag industry, that its cartoonishly evil, that youve been complaining about for a day now dude. This is a silly.

    This whole thing is weird like youre not even really contending the criticism of ag labor practices its just all about tone and messaging like this is a campaign or something.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    'Not all men' is a defense against a made up argument that 'all men are rapists' or something along those lines. The defense is disingenuous because it's both plainly obvious on its face, made in contradiction to a fictional argument, and so done purely as a distraction.

    The analogous 'not all farmers' type argument being made here is not the same, because it sounds to me like an actual defense against a very real 'all farm owners are evil capitalists trying to destroy migrant workers' (ish) argument that people in this thread are making. The 'not all farmers' argument also seems to be plainly obvious on its face, but it still seems necessary because one side is making the very kind of sweeping generalization that IS NOT happening in the other case.

    So yes, if you want to in full faith argue that all men are literally rapists, then 'not all men' is going to be a valid argument against you. Try making a better argument if you don't want that to happen!


    At any rate, I don't know anything about farming, but I can tell good arguments when I read them, and so far only one side here has them. I think a lot of people here are assuming that certain things about the evilness of farmers is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained to anyone, and no caveats need to be made in their posts, but...it doesn't seem that way to me.

    sig.gif
    Shadowhope
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    'Not all men' is a defense against a made up argument that 'all men are rapists' or something along those lines. The defense is disingenuous because it's both plainly obvious on its face, made in contradiction to a fictional argument, and so done purely as a distraction.

    The analogous 'not all farmers' type argument being made here is not the same, because it sounds to me like an actual defense against a very real 'all farm owners are evil capitalists trying to destroy migrant workers' (ish) argument that people in this thread are making. The 'not all farmers' argument also seems to be plainly obvious on its face, but it still seems necessary because one side is making the very kind of sweeping generalization that IS NOT happening in the other case.

    So yes, if you want to in full faith argue that all men are literally rapists, then 'not all men' is going to be a valid argument against you. Try making a better argument if you don't want that to happen!


    At any rate, I don't know anything about farming, but I can tell good arguments when I read them, and so far only one side here has them. I think a lot of people here are assuming that certain things about the evilness of farmers is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained to anyone, and no caveats need to be made in their posts, but...it doesn't seem that way to me.

    Who has been making such an argument?

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Registered User regular
    "ish" doing a lot of work in that post

    Hacksaw
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited November 26
    i would be more inclined to accept the “not all farming” argument if the arguments proffered anything stronger than personal anecdotes and scolding in the face of the various sources being cited regarding the exploitation of, again, mostly-Latin immigrant farm labor.

    Reminder that this front in the labor conversation started because I posted about a couple of farm workers that made only $30 per 900 pound bin of citrus fruits, and then a chunk of the thread tried to contort itself into rationalizing that exploitation with appeals to market forces

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DarkPrimuszepherinHefflingHacksawRedTideMan in the Mists
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    'Not all men' is a defense against a made up argument that 'all men are rapists' or something along those lines. The defense is disingenuous because it's both plainly obvious on its face, made in contradiction to a fictional argument, and so done purely as a distraction.

    The analogous 'not all farmers' type argument being made here is not the same, because it sounds to me like an actual defense against a very real 'all farm owners are evil capitalists trying to destroy migrant workers' (ish) argument that people in this thread are making. The 'not all farmers' argument also seems to be plainly obvious on its face, but it still seems necessary because one side is making the very kind of sweeping generalization that IS NOT happening in the other case.

    So yes, if you want to in full faith argue that all men are literally rapists, then 'not all men' is going to be a valid argument against you. Try making a better argument if you don't want that to happen!


    At any rate, I don't know anything about farming, but I can tell good arguments when I read them, and so far only one side here has them. I think a lot of people here are assuming that certain things about the evilness of farmers is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained to anyone, and no caveats need to be made in their posts, but...it doesn't seem that way to me.

    Who has been making such an argument?

    Heffling? I mean it's on this page of the thread and I quoted it like three or four posts ago.

    ElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusShadowhope
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    i would be more inclined to accept the “not all farming” argument if the arguments proffered anything stronger than a personal anecdotes and scolding in the face of the various sources being cited regarding the exploitation of, again, mostly-Latin immigrant farm labor.

    Reminder that this front in the labor conversation started because I posted about a couple of farm workers that made only $30 per 900 pound bin of citrus fruits, and then a chunk of the thread tried to contort itself into rationalizing that exploitation with appeals to market forces

    Because people are talking about labor intensive crops, which are a vast minority of US farmland, but framing it poorly so that it comes across as talking about farming as a whole.

    ElvenshaeShadowhope
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I think a big part of the problem here is it sounds like to some people there is Labor and there is Capital and they are Completely Separate. Whereas in real life there's a lot of grey area inbetween, and some farmers meet the functional definitions of both.

    People are bringing up examples of a farmer plowing and harvesting their own grain as though that somehow disproves the complaints raised about other farm operations exploiting migrant labor.

    It's real "not ALL men" energy. If the specific farm you're thinking of isn't part of the problem that's well and good but it doesn't mean the problem does not exist and is not widespread and systemic.

    'Not all men' is a defense against a made up argument that 'all men are rapists' or something along those lines. The defense is disingenuous because it's both plainly obvious on its face, made in contradiction to a fictional argument, and so done purely as a distraction.

    The analogous 'not all farmers' type argument being made here is not the same, because it sounds to me like an actual defense against a very real 'all farm owners are evil capitalists trying to destroy migrant workers' (ish) argument that people in this thread are making. The 'not all farmers' argument also seems to be plainly obvious on its face, but it still seems necessary because one side is making the very kind of sweeping generalization that IS NOT happening in the other case.

    So yes, if you want to in full faith argue that all men are literally rapists, then 'not all men' is going to be a valid argument against you. Try making a better argument if you don't want that to happen!


    At any rate, I don't know anything about farming, but I can tell good arguments when I read them, and so far only one side here has them. I think a lot of people here are assuming that certain things about the evilness of farmers is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained to anyone, and no caveats need to be made in their posts, but...it doesn't seem that way to me.

    Who has been making such an argument?

    Heffling? I mean it's on this page of the thread and I quoted it like three or four posts ago.

    You were raging against such a supposed argument for two pages of this thread before Heffling made that post.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Styrofoam SammichHacksawMatev
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    God I love when threads break down into arguing about arguing instead of actually having a discussion.

    Styrofoam SammichDarkPrimusHacksawIncenjucarGnome-InterruptusShadowfireMoridin889TynnancrzyangoShadowhopeHefflingOrcaMatev
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    i would be more inclined to accept the “not all farming” argument if the arguments proffered anything stronger than a personal anecdotes and scolding in the face of the various sources being cited regarding the exploitation of, again, mostly-Latin immigrant farm labor.

    Reminder that this front in the labor conversation started because I posted about a couple of farm workers that made only $30 per 900 pound bin of citrus fruits, and then a chunk of the thread tried to contort itself into rationalizing that exploitation with appeals to market forces

    Because people are talking about labor intensive crops, which are a vast minority of US farmland, but framing it poorly so that it comes across as talking about farming as a whole.

    Industrialized farming has enormous labor and environmental problems. It is also the only reason we have enough food to eat? Assuming you aren't willing to go 90% vegetarian.

    Small hold farmers run the gamut between dilligent stewards of the earth, who provide good paying jobs to many in their community, to comedically awful people who force migrant laborers into near slavery so that they can get a government subsidy.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Gnome-Interruptusdispatch.oShadowhopezepherinMatev
Sign In or Register to comment.