Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (128304)	8/1/2005 2:48:22 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 793928

"If the safety net were dismantled, is it possible the land would be used differently? Is possible that society would benefit from a more efficient resource allocation?" I think it is more like counties attracting large manufactures with tax incentives or major investment packages. If US ag didn't benefit from labor which is a substantial social sink, it would not be competitive against many importers. So if minimum wage were to rise to the point that the average Hispanic farm worker family actually paid their own keep, most ag would go out of business (mechanized commodities being a different issue BTW). It is just one of the many ways our free market society provides subsides to a crucial industry while maintaining an illusion of not doing so. If we were to stop this, Safeway would look more like WalMart as far as country of origin for most the produce. The problem of costs versus benefit should always be considered. IMHO any enterprise that cannot make a profit must be either justified as a social good and subsidies justified that way, or it must be allowed to perish at the discretion of the owners. Earlier you were commenting on the cost to your community of the low wage farm workers. It sounds like you have convinced yourself it is a social good.