That seems to be the biggest problem with lower class work in the US at the moment. Cost of living is always going up, but the companies want to pay the same paltry wages they were a few decades ago.
And maybe the price just needs to go higher still. I'm not going to tell someone how much they have to work for. But it's interesting that – once you account for the significantly lower cost of living generally found in these rural areas – you're practically making programmer in a big city wages now and that's still not appealing to someone who is unemployed.
In a lot of ways, I think enraged_camel (and cobo) hit the nail on the head[1]. Nobody wants the identity of working on a farm. There are a lot of negative connotations related to that type of work that have been built up over the years.
The problems with children are really just problems with adults.
There are plenty of truly poor people out there who I really do think would rather be homeless than toil dangerously.
9.70 doesn't pay for a broken arm or back pain years down the line
Right, hence the comment implying that a gas station job around that amount would get workers. But in a time where there is a significant push to make the minimum wage $15, it's not surprising that people won't do hard labor for $10.
Why is that foreigners are taking these jobs and not Americans?
Look at things today. The return on labor has dropped significantly due to outsourcing and immigration dropping wages at a time when corporate earnings are higher than ever and socioeconomic mobility is at an all-time low[1]. Productivity is higher & GDP per capita is over $50k/yr, yet the majority of people, especially in the lower class, have not been benefiting from this. I guarantee the corporate managers make obscenely more money than the farm laborers do. I personally don't feel it's bad to feel entitled to my fair share of the work I put in.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...
Ironically, unions play their own part in that. Here in Canada we like to pick on teachers because, thanks to a strong union, they can make almost $100,000 for 8 months of work. Which is fine, and good for them, but the problem is that they are able to achieve that high income only because they actively prevent other people from doing the job. Someone who is stuck in a low-paying job has no avenue to compete against them, leaving that person stuck in a low-paying job while the teacher can start amassing wealth with the high income their job provides. This is how inequality happens.
Of course, not the same degree that you find with what is quite possibly the most insidious form of protectionism: Intellectual property. It's no coincidence that people like Bill Gates, who built a business on copyright law, are among the richest in the world. As soon as someone tries to offer the "Doors" operating system to fulfill the huge demand for such a product, they will get the pants sued off them. You can try to offer something sort of the same, but not really, but that doesn't put much pressure on the market for obvious reasons.
It would be kind of like if diary and poultry (Diary and poultry products have their own protectionist system in Canada, so I use that example as more than just a hypothetical) products were controlled by a certain group. You can grow celery to try and compete against them, but that's not really going to stop people from buying dairy and poultry if that's what the market wants. Celery is not cheese. As such, those who control the market profit greatly. A family friend is in the chicken business and he's been willing to share his wealth, and let's just say that I think a lot of startups would be pivoting to that business if there was a viable way in. The problem is, of course, that the protectionism doesn't allow a viable way in for everyone else.