Archive: [ https://archive.is/p8x6G ]
When the Thompson family’s pet newspaper is saying it’s a bad thing, you know we’ve gone too far.
We need to quickly phase out the low-skill stream of the TFW program, which the government has expanded to let companies fill perceived labour shortages.
Is it truly just perceived? I’d want to see some stats on where the labour force is actually thin.
You can pay migrants low wages for less expensive food, or you can pay high wages to any citizens willing to work that hard for expensive food. This is not a new dilemma, red states in the US have tried multiple times to outlaw migrant farm labor and replace it with prison labor or other types of labor, and it has only resulted in several seasons’ worth of crops rotting in the fields.
Personally, I’d want the labor to be compensated fairly with benefits and proper wages, but then I don’t manage a farm and I don’t buy expensive food.
I think this reply may be a part of the problem with this debate. It assumes that the participants in the program are agricultural workers. This is traditionally true, but under the current program agriculture workers only represent 60%.
An estimated 15% work in food service, with another 10% in the broader hospitality sector. 5-10% work in construction.
I would point you to a recent Lemmy post that shows grocery and processor profits spiking, while farm income is flat.
Cancelling the TFW program would help, sure, but the other half of the coin should be much, much higher marginal tax rates that put a brake on profiteering. One of the reason everything is so theadbare is because the rich are taking an increasing share of the wealth, and the reason they’re doing that is because we don’t tax them for it. Because we don’t tax them, they have no incentive to invest in people or productivity improvements, and every incentive to use those profits for financialization.
