95% of tomatoes in California are machine-picked. Farms that use toughened tomatoes can use very high powered machinery.[1] There are gentler machines for more fragile varieties [2].

Now in test, picking robots for more fragile fruit.[3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EpFTyN26E [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YeGOv87JE4 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS0coCmXiYU

Seems to make sense with something like tomatoes, where you can destroy the plant during harvest like that. But looking at the apple one, I'm not sure if it's as fast as a human being, and if it would be cheaper than human labor.

The apple picker is a prototype, from Abundant Robotics, an SRI spinoff. It suffers from being a Silicon Valley R&D effort - the computer technology is cool, and the mechanical parts are too flimsy. Somebody needs to get those guys some hardass mechanical designers from John Deere or Caterpillar or Ponsse who know how to make machinery work reliably in the field. I think they're still at the angel investor stage. They'll need another funding round soon, and if they're lucky, their funder will know who to put in there to get the thing out of R&D and into production.

> some hardass mechanical designers from John Deere or Caterpillar or Ponsse

Since all those companies are doing really badly, there should be plenty of those to go around.

A big reason why a robot might not outperform a human is that it's just cheaper to hire humans. And that strikes me as an excellent incentive to make sure humans are paid more and within a legal framework; it increases the rate of technological development.

And while the resulting unemployment is a very serious issue, I'm inclined to think that the benefits outweigh the cost.

(That said, I very aware of the fact that this is easy for me to say)

Most tree-grown fruits fall off the tree easily when ripe, so something like this cherry harvester seems like it would be a lot more efficient - https://youtu.be/YKu6xwJptkc?t=2m4s

Are most tree-grown fruits actually harvested when ripe? I seem to recall reading something a while back about how most fruit is picked before it is ripe, and picking is timed such that it ripens by the time it gets transported to the warehouse, grocery store, purchased, etc.

The tree-grown fruit that is sold in the UK has been harvested before it is ripe, it is still too hard to eat when you throw it away.

California voters roundly approved a similar law in 1994. It even passed in Los Angeles County.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

So crops rot. The price goes up. Now they can make more money selling crops. So they can pay people more. What I am missing here?

So many things.

In a first approximation: You can't sell crops that did rot. And the next harvest is next year.

Then there's of course the fact that almost nobody (with citizenship) actually wants to pick crops, no matter what you pay them, because it's back-breaking labor. Yes, there'd be a price at which they would, but that's not a price the public would pay for your crops.

Of course, if you don't give a shit about people and treat the world solely as an economics textbook, sure, this is perfectly normal and the market is working.

>Then there's of course the fact that almost nobody (with citizenship) actually wants to pick crops...

This is complete bullshit and needs to quit being touted. Americans are not afraid of hard, back-breaking labor. I grew up in the Midwest surrounded by corn and soy beans (and not too many illegal or legal immigrants). Tons of my white, middle class friends went out into the field to pollinate corn in the summers or went down to strawberry fields to pick when they came in season.

What a sheltered life you must lead if you've never met an American that does manual labor or works in a field...

It's not "complete bullshit". Even at the height of the Great Recession, with unemployment through the roof, American citizens were turning down field work in droves.[1]

I've seen it myself. Some of it's cultural -- manual farm work is seen as "beneath" people -- but most of it's economics. Nice that you grew up in a time and place where a citizen could afford to work in the fields, but those days are long gone. If you're not single and sharing the rent for your three bedroom house with 10 amigos, you're not going to make ends meet on farm labor wages and hours.

[1]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/despite-economy-americans-dont-w...

Missing from that article is how much it costs people to take those jobs. Travel expenses, lost benefits, etc.

Do you mean children/teenagers? Sure, you can get kids to do farm work. I picked crops when I was much younger and it was indeed back-breaking labor. Now if you can find ~1 million adults to do that work then that is another story.

For the wages and working conditions of illegal immigrants?

>but that's not a price the public would pay for your crops.

Maybe the public needs to get used to paying premium prices for premium work instead of outsourcing slavery to other countries or importing cheap slave-wage laborers illegally.

Or some will just automate, while others go out of business, and then you're left with still more expensive crops than before without any workers getting paid to pick them.

But I'm sure those "slaves" will thank you.

Wall Street's interests are diametrically opposed to workers. Wall Street wants to turn good jobs into shitty jobs and ship them to more desperate poor people in poorer countries, whereas workers want the exact opposite. We've had 30 years of free trade and basically no border. A nudge in the other direction isn't going to be the end of the world. A blip on the jobs radar which comes along with stronger worker rights is gonna be okay.

"Then there's of course the fact that almost nobody (with citizenship) actually wants to pick crops, no matter what you pay them, because it's back-breaking labor. "

This is not true. There is absolutely a pay rate, and set of labour conditions in which Americans will do those jobs.

There are tons of innovation in labour: grabber/chopper rods so that people don't have to bend over all day - for example, could be one such innovation. But maybe it cuts down productivity by 30% - so in a 'cheap labour' world it would never be conceived of.

But if labour costs are high, and farm workers have to actually pay Americans - then guess what - those types of innovations definitely happen.

Do you realize how many 'really crap' jobs there are out there?

How about dealing with screaming customers all day on the phone, trying to 'upsell' them?

Some people prefer not dealing with issues, and doing something repetitive.

Also - the hypocrisy of employers not paying for social services, healthcare, taxes - etc. etc. - but the government giving them social services and 'access to emergency healthcare' and drivers licences?

Basically, farmers are externalizing the social costs of their labour onto you and I, in an inefficient way.

This is totally wrong.

Farmers - and others - are pushed to use 'illegal labour' because if 'the farmer next door' is doing it, and the 'farmer down the street is' - then they have no choice to.

The best thing is to make sure that everyone is paying minimum wage, taxes, basic healthcare, respecting workplace regulations etc. - and even hiring authorized workers.

This means that prices will rise for some things - and you and I will pay more for them in the store - but it's a far more responsible form of capitalism - and prices more accurately reflect cost to society.

Some things won't be able to be done in the US - that's fine. Move that to other places. Let Mexico and Africa have a cut of the business.

Finally - one way to accommodate a tight labour market in a legal and 'above bar' manner would be to allow for 'pink cards' - i.e. foreign workers can apply for 'pink cards' for specific intervals, they 'check in' and 'check out' of the country given that pink card. That card comes with a 'temp SID' which they can use to pay their taxes, and claim benefits associated with the term.

Unregulated black market economies are good for nobody in the long run, they lead to all sorts of problems and growing inequality.

Enforce immigration and workers laws, provide some ability to help with a tightened labour force (i.e. pink cards) and facilitate good trade flow (i.e. customs unions and free trade) for items which cannot be produced in the US.

"you don't give a shit about people and treat the world solely as an economics textbook"

Trust me - migrant workers 'don't get given a shit about' by anyone, because if they are 'off the books' they have absolutely no protections - nothing.

Put the economy 'above bar'.

There would be no war over migration if we just had some basic but intelligent rules that were responsibly enforced.

> This is not true. There is absolutely a pay rate, and set of labour conditions in which Americans will do those jobs.

But maybe not one at which the jobs would still exist; increasing price decreases market clearing quantity, ceteris paribus. You can either have poor wages and working conditions in farm labor, more direct government subsidies for agriculture, or less agriculture getting done in the US, because if you increase wages and thereby prices, you aren't going to move as much goods. Various treaties (and domestic politics) interfere with the second option, and there is overwhelming domestic political resistance to the last option, so we get the first even though it's frequently a source of complaints (and rests on the back of illegal immigration, which is itself unpopular).

Not endorsing any aspect of the state of affairs, but that's just the way it is.

> Some things won't be able to be done in the US - that's fine. Move that to other places. Let Mexico and Africa have a cut of the business.

Mexico has sizable food exports, as does pretty much every place with the arable land and political stability to grow export crops. Decreasing US production by increasing labor costs in the US for ag labor may make some additional production elsewhere economical that isn't already, but the main impact would be lower global production of food and higher global prices. Arable land isn't, unlike industrial capital, something that is readily movable to wherever labor and other conditions are most favorable to production.

It's because I care about people that I want more fairness and honesty in the economic situation. The consequences you describe reflect how the market should have been, were it not for the destabilization of inconsistently applied labor laws.

Inflation. More expensive cost of living for your customers. Not a problem when your Apple gadget budget is a multiple of your food budget. But not everyone has this luxury. Protectionism in international trade will have similar impact. Tax chinese imports and suddenly walmart will hike their prices.

One thing that's worth noting is that we've had virtually no inflation for a very long time. The wealth class prefers it this way, but the worker struggling to pay off debts wouldn't mind a little inflation every now and then.

What kinds of debts are you thinking of? I don't know any workers with long-term debts which aren't inflation adjusted (even if indirectly).

The whole idea of inflation reducing the value of debts seems silly. "We'll trick those bankers with this well known, mostly predictable, small decrease in the value of money! They'll never see it coming!"

> What kinds of debts are you thinking of?

Mortgage loans, student loans, car loans, credit card debt, taxes paid in service to national debt, ...

> I don't know any workers with long-term debts which aren't inflation adjusted (even if indirectly).

Interest rates are somewhat inversely correlated with inflation.

Typically the only time you see high inflation and high interest rates together is when the economy is booming and people are willing to borrow despite the high interest rates. Then that borrowing, since banks create the money they loan you (they don't actually have all of it they just credit your account), causes inflation.

When inflation is caused by the government creating money, it causes interest rates to go down. Because the supply of money goes up so by supply and demand the price of money goes down. The price of money is the interest rate, therefore lower interest rates.

You would think banks wouldn't loan money if the interest rate is less than the rate of inflation, but remember again that they don't actually have all the money you borrow, they just credit your account and collect interest. Even if they had the money, it does them no good sitting in a vault depreciating -- 1% interest against 10% inflation is still more than the 0% they get by not loaning it to anyone.

The main problem is that the lower interest rates cause people to borrow more money, so the key is to combine the inflation with policies that would otherwise be deflationary. Increase the housing supply, eliminate mortgage and student loan interest subsidies for new debt, etc. Discourage new debt in general -- even tax loan interest on new debts. That allows the market to correct against historical bad policies without causing disastrous deflation.

If I have a debt at an interest rate of 4% and inflation is 5% my debt is worth less every year relative to the value of other things. If I have a debt at an interest rate of 5% and inflation is 2.5% the value of the debt is increasing. This effect is increased if only interest is being paid and the asset the debt is for does not increase in value (like a car).

Add to this that wages are relatively stagnant for most people outside of tech since the 80s in some countries and you have a problem. It can get even worse where wages are kept stagnant by government intervention and inflation goes up faster than 5%.

Mortgages.

Now, you could argue that the expectation of future inflation is built into the mortgage interest rate at the time you obtain the mortgage. And you'd be correct. But once you have the mortgage, then inflation helps you. Or rather, it helps you when your wages rise in response to inflation.

Unless you have a variable-rate mortgage, of course.

Which is why people tout going fixed rate

Ignore Tucker Carlson, economist Mark Blyth got famous recently for being virtually the only economist who predicted Trump's win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-hV_XS8dH4

Why point to Mark Blyth and not to Arthur Laffer?

Not necessarily - there can be inflation without worker's pay increases, and inflation leads to more costly credit - so someone in that situation is twice as worse-off as before.

Try telling that to the working public who basically hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years in spite of sky-rocketing productivity.

Why wouldn't more farmers just let their crops rot to make more money?

Because unless last year was a good year, making no money this year means you will be out of business next year.

Because you have nothing to sell even if demand goes up. Does you no good.

I remember this. "Be careful what you wish for" is going to be a running theme for the next couple of years. I suspect a lot of folks are going to be wishing things had just been left alone.

No. I would rather automation replace the abuse of illegal immigrant labor.

The sad thing is that they most likely would choose to continue being abused; being that the alternative is starving.

B-but, it's their choice to be enlsaved ! /s

If it was more cost effective, that would happen already. Produce prices will likely rise if this becomes an issue.

... rise to a level that reflects a fair and honest competitive market, as opposed to one where the labor pool has two populations following two sets of rules. Sounds like progress to me.

Yep and people will buy the cheaper produce from South American markets boosting the economy down there.

Similar to how people buy Chinese manufactured products in Wal-Mart then complain about manufacturing being overseas.

Sounds good to me.

* consumers would be paying a fair price with rational decision-making

* there would be "made in the usa" marketing for local / national produce

* voters would look much more carefully at minimum wage increases

Tariffs.

I suspect that there is an initial hump where investment in automated farm labor will need to take place, but after the hump it won't be rational to go back.

Of course this is all speculation on my part.

What happened in Alabama since? Would love to read a followup.

Most of HB56 was eventually struck down in court or settled out of existence, and cops stopped trying to enforce whatever is left of it. It was a huge embarrassment for the entire state, and likely contracted the state economy by as much as 6% the year after it passed, most severely in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. In subsequent years, investment stayed away, because few outside the state wanted the blatantly racist and xenophobic policy to rub off on their PR. But Alabama politics did not learn from the experience; people in the state still overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump in the 2016 elections.

Supporters of the measure still believe it would have worked if it was just allowed to operate as intended, rather than being blocked by the courts at every turn. To be fair, it did cause many of the prohibited aliens to leave the state, but it also caused their permitted and naturalized friends and family to leave with them, and it turns out all those people are actually a significant net benefit to the economy. Fewer crops have rotted, because farmers don't plant what they can't harvest.

In short, the state is still ruled by bad hombres and nasty women that shamelessly pander to an ill-informed populace.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-alabamas-failed-anti...

See also the documentary 9500 Liberty. I believe you can find it free online legally.[0]

TL;DR:

Prince Cook County in Virginia instituted a similar check required by police officers to ask for legality if there was "probably cause." The Police Chief was against it but when it was enacted, enforced the law. This caused a bunch of the immigrant families living there to leave, thus nearly crushing the entire county's economy.

You get hot takes like "9/11 was caused by illegals" and people saying they wanted to get rid of those who are, "Speaking Spanish, playing Latin music, owning a chicken, growing corn, not having health insurance"

And also a whole bunch of people essentially saying, "i'm not racist, but..."

[0] https://vimeo.com/128386646

You also get a lot of people saying that the lax immigration is specifically designed so that farmers (and restaurants, and even private persons) could exploit labor instead of paying livable wages.

Since lax immigration's net result is a serious deterioration in labor conditions, it shouldn't exist. And frankly, let's just not pretend this i meant to increase the chances those people have in life, therefore it should not be done.

These people would generally be referred to as "leftists". And please just don't make the argument that people should "allow" themselves to be exploited if they want to. It should simply not be possible to exploit labor. That means no illegals and strict enforcement of immigration laws, especially against employers.

Immigration laws protect people, among other things, against competing in a global labor market. Why ? Because global labor conditions are disgustingly bad.

Global median wage is $18000 PPP dollars (yearly). There are 2 terms that require definition. Firstly median means 50% make less than that and you should generally expect to make slightly less than that if you're not exceptional. Second is PPP dollars. The "real" global wage in real dollars is about $3000, but because bread is generally cheaper outside of developed economies. To put it inaccurately but easily, you can buy $3000 worth of iPads with PPP dollars, but $18000 worth of bread.

If you are unwilling to work for a yearly wage of somewhere between $3k and $18k, and you think the law needs to prevent such a situation from arising, then part of that law needs to be that illegal immigrants can't work in the US. Otherwise such a law is crippled/sabotaged.

I get that the "gig economy" cannot exist under those conditions. And that you will have to walk 200m if you want pizza in the weekend, or pay 40$ or so for that pizza. That's what it takes for everyone to be able to live, and the gig economy, frankly, deserves to be laid waste.

they should call trump and as for the national guard

IANAL, but I believe that the state is the only one with the authority to deploy a national guard within its borders; the president can only deploy the army domestically if the insurrection act is invoked.