Re:The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets...
by daddylonglegs on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @03:02AM
(#23244088)
The fruit picker's wages aren't necessarily that large a component of the consumer price for the fruit. This economist argues that in the US: "For a typical household, a 40 percent increase in farm labor costs translates into a 3.6 percent increase in retail prices. If farm wages rose 40 percent, and this wage increase were passed on to consumers, average spending on fresh fruits and vegetables would rise about $15 a year..."
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/17/could-farms...
Re:The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets...
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @02:41AM
(#23243947)
That just means strawberries become a luxury fruit. That’s fine. Nobody needs strawberries. And it provides an incentive for automation.
I’m not sold on expansive UBI. (The EITC seems like a better middle step.) But I don’t buy this argument.
Re:The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets...
by MattGaiser on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @02:45AM
(#23243970)
Yes, but then expand the strawberries issue to virtually all vegetables and fruit (except those harvested outside the country).
Making fruit and vegetables a luxury doesn't fit onto anyone's list of good public health outcomes.
Re:The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets...
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @02:51AM
(#23244016)
> expand the strawberries issue to virtually all vegetables and fruit
Lots of produce production is already 90% automated. (Corn, for instance.) Strawberries are a particularly manually-intensive fruit.
That doesn't mean it's bad that it doesn't occur. Just that if the equilibrium price has any link of the chain be legally unacceptable you might literally kill a market. There is no new equilibrium. There just isn't product.