Hacker News Reader

Comment by acjohnson55 | Hacker News Reader

> "In the fields, I would say 70% of the workers are gone," she said in an interview. "If 70% of your workforce doesn't show up, 70% of your crop doesn't get picked and can go bad in one day. Most Americans don't want to do this work. Most farmers here are barely breaking even. I fear this has created a tipping point where many will go bust."

Presumably, there will be bigger pocketed entities waiting in the wings to snap up some distressed assets.

View on HN

I assume there are indeed some buyers who will indeed snap up the assets, but I do wonder "and then what?"

They trust that their bigger political clout will let them continue to employee undocumented migrant workers at wages no one else will work for?

They wait for the political climate to change, and then they'll go back to business as usual?

They wait for produce prices to skyrocket/the job market to crater, and then pay minimum wage for the jobs?

Something something, AI/robots?

> They trust that their bigger political clout will let them continue to employee undocumented migrant workers at wages no one else will work for?

Yes, this is exactly what will happen.

I don’t think this is clear. They might just mechanise why have jobs when a machine can do the job just as well?

This assumes that a machine can do the job, but the present owners don't understand it. The article doesn't say "this will force farmers to mechanise more", see?

If a machine could have done the job it would be doing it right now.

Not if using illegal workers is cheaper.

Illegal migration makes it infeasible to invest in technology to automate the work, because any business that wants to invest in automation will be undercut by a less ethical competitor employing illegal, artificially cheap workers. This also makes it hard to attract investment for companies building technology to automate this work, because investors assume that the government will continue to not enforce the law, leading to reduced demand for labor-replacing technology. We won't get significant innovation and investment in this field until the government sends a clear message that they will be consistently enforcing the law going forward.

The cynic in me thinks that this is a way for bigger farms to gobble up smaller farms by calling in ice but knowing that they will be able to keep ice from raiding them unless a bigger farm pays to have them raided.

Wait it out. Cropland is a solid asset. Lots of soybean farmland for sale in my neck of the woods.

> "[...] but I do wonder 'and then what?'"

America's prison industry, one of the Trump administration's biggest profiteers, might have some relevant answers for you. ;)

At what quality? Most frameworks are paid by amount harvested so they bust their asses to pick all that fruit. What’s the motivation for prisoners to do more than the bare minimum? Related question, what will the other inmates do to the inmate who works much harder than everyone else?

Prison laborers generally get paid (very poorly).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

I'm sure a nation with such a... shall we say... "colorful" and rich history in prison and slave labor can muster some experts on the matter to answer your questions. Satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back. Et cetera.

What American would want to do the work when you're competing with people who aren't subject to labor laws like minimum wage, break times and so forth?

And when people ask where is the money going to come from it’s very easy to point out the ever growing wealth gap and immoral levels of wealth our billionaire class has. But that never happens, and this meaningless left / right dichotomy continues to distract the population.

A few less iPhones and a few more automated farms. Billionaires would be hardest hit unfortunately.

But Americans are subject to labor laws and minimum wage and break times and so forth, so how is this a factor in whether or not they want to do the work? You'll get paid minimum wage and have breaks.

The implication is that undocumented laborers, or those who fear immigration enforcement, will not report illegal working conditions or wage theft. It is further implied that plenty of Americans would do the job with adequate pay and working conditions.

do they have a source on many americans dont want to do this type of work part?

There's a funny video associated with this campaign from 2010 https://ufw.org/allvoices-colbert-says-always-wanted-a-farm-...

Look at UC Davis Gifford Center’s April 2024 “Farm Labor Issues in the 2020s” summary report: https://gifford.ucdavis.edu/events/past/april-4-2024-farm-la...

Very few U.S.-born workers respond to job ads for seasonal crop work, Show up when work begins, or Stick around through the harvest season. "Even when wages reach—or exceed $20–$30 per hour, seasonal U.S. workers overwhelmingly opt out of field labor. That persistent gap is why American agriculture depends so heavily on immigrant and guest‐worker programs, and why mechanization continues to accelerate."

The simple counter is to offer higher wages. We absolutely have the capital and tech to ensure people can make a decent living doing farm labor.

It would require less billionaires and less chatgpt wrappers with billion dollar valuations.

This. Labor markets cut both ways but you have to actually follow the rules for it to work.

Wait till you find out how much legal workers who make clothes in America make.

Go move to South America if you think their workers have something we don't and will make your life so much better.

That’s a silly response. Why do you think workers are exploited? You say we need to play by the roles, but you’re going to balk at the cost of playing by those rules.

We have absolutely decided we're fine with it. We'd prefer a functioning domestic economy to cheap luxuries.

I found the most Planet Money episode on this eye-opening: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/1255526971/garment-workers-cl...

We have the capital and tech to ensure out entire population has living wages, and yet and increasing swath of them do not

or they just go out of business and we import our non mechanized crops to developing countries. Farming isn't a high margin business and if it were as simple are rising wages and prices, you wouldn't see the farms going out of business.

There is a reason European farmers are deeply subsidized.

Note that the same report says legal, temporary "H-2A workers are more productive and provide labor insurance for producers of perishable commodities, but cost $5 to $10 an hour more than settled farm workers because of recruitment, transportation, and housing costs."

The bigger-pocketed entities need a plan to make a profit before they buy. That plan isn't easy to make — that's why the present owners risk going bust.

Do you have proof of this, because I seriously doubt it is true. The idea there are unused assets waiting in the wings is just absurd.

Oh, it's parked somewhere - Treasury bonds, the stock market, or something. It's still liquid enough to buy a deeply discounted asset when you see one, though.

Wait. Do you believe that right now, there are no large entities around with vast amounts of funds that they are looking to invest? None?

I don't doubt that funds are available. The idea that a perishable commodity can be harvested in days by applying these funds is absolutely bonkers.

I'll turn it around: how long do you think the time to get those crops harvested is? People didn't show up for work, the clock is ticking.

I was responding to someone that seemed to imply that resources were on STANDBY to swoop in and harvest the crops. That is completely untrue and just dumb.

Ah. I think there might be a misunderstanding.

I read GP's comment as saying that large investors will be happy to buy "distressed assets", eg. the bankrupt farm itself, after its ruined crops caused bankrupcy.

They don't care about the crop ; the same way that a speculator might have bought LA real estate for a symbolic dollar after the house itself had burnt down. They don't care about the family house, they care about buying the underlying asset (the land) for cheaper than its real value.

Ah, yes, I think you're right. I didn't read it the same way as you (and others!) and I think my interpretation is wrong.

This is what the private equity industry exists to do (particularly firms with strategies like distressed, roll-ups, take-privates, etc).

They raise funds from large pools of capital, like endowments and pension funds, and they invest it into assets they identify as undervalued or underproducing.

When there is a crash in an asset class, private equity has often stepped in to buy assets at firesale prices from forced sellers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com