They make 30 dollars an hour.
Given you got that far into the article, what are your suggestions for the farmers pain points? How would you price asparagus that needed twice the labor costs to harvest than a box next week that didn't?
Given you got that far into the article, what are your suggestions for the farmers pain points? How would you price asparagus that needed twice the labor costs to harvest than a box next week that didn't?
First of all, they were claiming that farm workers used to earn up to $1,400/week and now they are earning up to $1,000/week. They were also claiming that they could work up to 70 hours per week in the past, and now they are limiting it to 48 hours per week. Oh yes, there was also the claim they could earn up to $30/hour.
- $1,400/week at 70 hours results in an hourly rate of $20/hour. Likewise, $1,400/week at $30/hour reflects 46.7 hours of work. Perhaps they mean take-home pay, but I've never heard of businesses discussing pay in that context. Perhaps the skilled workers ($30/hour) are working fewer hours than the lesser skilled workers who are being paid $20/hour. In that case, they are not working enough hours to earn overtime.
- Even if they had to start paying overtime, time-and-a-half only accounts for a 21.4% increase labor costs assuming everyone was working 70 hour work weeks, not 50% more as the article claims. Given the claim that labor costs contribute to half of the cost of production, we would expect the cost of the product to rise by about 11%.
Take my numbers with a grain of salt, because the numbers they are based upon (those cited in the article) are of unclear provenance. At best, the article's numbers are cherry picked and misleading. At worse, they are pulled out of a hat.
But ok yeah 30/hour for 48 (soon 40) hours of work, but you have to live on the farm 7 days a week. Sooo… that’s 30 * 48 / (24 * 7) = 8.60/hour.
If the target is to have each worker do 70 hours/week, but you’re capped at 40 hours before overtime kicks in, that only brings your cost up by:
With overtime: 40 normal hours * $30 + 30 overtime hours * $45 = $2550
Without overtime: 70 normal hours * $30 = $2100
Difference is $450/worker, or a ~21% increase in cost. At most, since most workers aren’t getting $30/hour. So yeah, raise the price of asparagus by 21%, to reflect the actual cost of picking, or better yet have the owners take a 21% pay cut.
Wouldn't be anything like 21%. Tons of costs other than the labor to pick. I'd bet it'd closer to 2% than 20%.
Plus, the same farmer said stuff like:
"After all, he says, he cannot raise his price on a box of asparagus by 50% just because it was cut on a Sunday."
Which makes me inclined to take anything he says about his business or this law with a grain of salt(ed & peppered grilled asparagus... mmm, delicious). Because that's both a blatant math fail, and a business-sense fail.
Literally still more than some other jobs, and meanwhile by this math you're getting paid while you're asleep or drinking with your friends.
> Without overtime: 70 normal hours * $30 = $2100
What typically happens: Farmer hires 75% more people so none of them get overtime but now they each make 57% as much money because they've each had their hours cut.
> So yeah, raise the price of asparagus by 21%, to reflect the actual cost of picking, or better yet have the owners take a 21% pay cut.
Food is a global commodity. The margins aren't 21% and if you try to raise the price buyers will just get it from someone in a different country.
> Literally still more than some other jobs, and meanwhile by this math you're getting paid while you're asleep or drinking with your friends.
This is big “a pizza party is good compensation for overtime” energy, my guy. If you’re AT work you’re working.
> Labor accounts for half of the costs
The margins aren't 10.5% either, and they can't go below the market rate of return or the farm shuts down because the land and equipment is worth more than it generates. Which it was already so close to before this happened that many of them already have.
This isn't Apple, it's a farm.
> If you’re AT work you’re working.
Slogans-as-hard-rules that don't take into account context is why labor laws consistently hurt workers.
Can you see why a worker might prefer this arrangement to one in which they're paid e.g. $12/hour for 40 hours, and are consequently upset at having it be prohibited?
The actual quote is:
> Labor accounts for half of the costs, he says
Unless he shows me his books, I’m not gonna believe that on just his word. Neither should you.
> The margins aren't 11.5% either
Again, I’d have to see his books before I concluded that the margins didn’t leave room for a <11.5% raise in labour costs. Remember - it would be less, since as he said only the most skilled cutters are earning +$30/hour.
"He" is the farmer. Who else would even know?
> Again, I’d have to see his books before I concluded that the margins didn’t leave room for a <11.5% raise in labour costs.
Books are just spreadsheets. They contain no authentication. You don't trust his word but you trust him to give you accurate numbers?
We don't need some specific farmer's accounts to know which businesses have low margins. Farming is a notoriously competitive industry with razor-thin margins because the product is a fungible global commodity.
> Remember - it would be less, since as he said only the most skilled cutters are earning +$30/hour.
The 21% increase comes from paying 50% more for 30 of 70 hours, (0.5 x 30)/70 = 21%, the same percentage regardless of the base hourly wage.
But it's actually worse than that, because for the overtime hours it's a 50% increase. Which is why they immediately get cut.
Wouldn't that also increase rates, since you need to hire more laborers, which means the demand for labor increases?
Another possibility, is lower peoples' rates to $24.80—40 hours at $24.80/hr + 30 hours at overtime = $2108, so the same as they were being paid before.
Or something in between.
Only if farm work is such a large proportion of the market for unskilled labor that it would move the entire market, which it isn't. And even if it was, paying more would raise costs which would cause marginal farms to fail and lower labor demand again.
> Another possibility, is lower peoples' rates to $24.80—40 hours at $24.80/hr + 30 hours at overtime = $2108, so the same as they were being paid before.
Those people don't want to work for $24.80/hour instead of $30 for most of the year just to be able to get overtime during harvest season. You might offer to pay them less during that time for the same kind of work, but this is the sort of thing the government sometimes gets mad at you for, because then you're transparently thwarting their inefficient price controls.
And you have to ask what's the point of the law if the best case scenario is that you can find a way to cause the rule to have no effect.
I was looking for a way to have the rule cause no harm—everybody works the same hours, and gets paid the same.
First, there is a difference between being away from home and being away from home while being on site 24/7. I'm pretty sure the business traveler and the majority of farm workers don't fit into the latter category. Those who do, such as people working in remote parts of the world, are usually paid quite handsomely.
Second is the level of compensation being provided. Even if you could earn $1,400/week every week of the year as a farm hand, which you cannot since it is seasonal work, you would still be earning less than most people who have to travel for business on a frequent basis. In other words, certain people have their pay padded to account for working away from home.
Finally, there are a whole host of other differences. To a certain degree, these laborers are considered replaceable. (They may not have lost their jobs, but they have lost hours.) The hours worked are rarely guaranteed, particularly if their role is tied to production (rather than maintenance). And if they do have a job outside of the farm, they're going to have far less flexibility to pick up extra hours even when the pay is better (not everyone is a migrant worker or a student).
I don't have to even ask them (since I've worked such jobs) to know what they want. They want as many paid overtime hours as they possibly can get during the season. Anyone limiting these hours will be seen as the enemy.
They are not upset at anyone other than the government over this situation, as they should be.
I don't think many on HN realize that this sort of ham-fisted regulation damages the lower classes and the narratives start from here. If you want to know why the EPA is so hated by blue collar rural workers - this is almost a perfect example. A policy put in place that harms them, when they are told it is helping when anyone complains about it.
But make no mistake, the exact same thing will happen on farms with much lower hourly wages where the same level of skill isn't required.
As for your second question, you and I both know the answers are difficult.
Do you think it's reasonable for American labourers to make the same as a labourer in Peru?
Because that's the issue here: globalized trade causing a race to the bottom in labour compensation.
IMO there aren't many great answers, but "pay people a Peruvian wage in the US" certainly isn't a good one.
Just like when water is scarce and expensive and you want to grow water intensive crops for cheap. Then the result is not that water needs to be cheaper, but that you simply chose the wrong crop.
On the other hand, it would then take them longer in terms of calendar days to get the same income, and all their other expenses are likely to stay the same. If they normally moved on to other jobs after the harvest, this would mean reduced overall income. Also, the difficulty of the job is factored into the pay they receive (the article specifically says their hourly wage is higher than normal farm labor), so they would likely be paid less for this less demanding crop. It still doesn't seem like much of a solution.
$30/hour isn’t what every worker is making.
You have to live on the farm 24/7 to get those 40 hours.
Normal worker was getting $1400/week, which is not $30*40hrs. Now closer to $1000/week, apparently. Tho these numbers are all from the owner not the workers.