1. Another strategy in ag for dealing with labor shortages is automation. Historically that has been driven by the rural to urban migration. More recently in specialty crops, it has been driven by immigrant labor shortages.
So a carrot harvest looks like this.
And picking tomatoes for sauce looks like this.
About a decade ago picking lettuce started to look like this.
With machine learning, it might soon look like this.
On dairy farms, robots are milking, delivering feed, and even managing grazing.
2. I pointed out that labor-intensive crops compete with imports which puts an upper boundary on how high labor costs can rise. But they also compete with domestic non-labor-intensive foods.
That is, if prices on say ... fresh strawberries goes up too much, people will eat something else. Maybe cheaper fresh fruit, or frozen strawberries, or strawberry Twizzlers.
That's not something that is as particular to the fresh produce market as the pressures of global markets, it's a very basic channel of substitution that any consumer good is subject to, but worth pointing out.
It's another upper bound on how much labor cost producers can pass on to consumers.
A (not so) quick personal note on what it means to be pushing back 'elective procedures' to work around COVID outbreaks.
I needed 'elective' surgery last summer which was put off for months as hospitals were taken over by COVID.
I was not going in for a tummy tuck.
I needed open-heart surgery to replace a congenitally defective heart valve that was failing. The only thing 'elective' about it was choosing the date.
The failure of my heart valve had been diagnosed late, so the symptoms were very advanced. The aperture of the valve was shrinking rapidly. I was not getting enough oxygen to my cells and became winded very easily.
This is something I haven't seen adequately discussed for the vaccine-hesitant who are waiting for more info about long-term effects.
The problem is that they are in the wrong paradigm.
They are thinking about vaccines like drugs we take on a long-term basis, where negative effects might take years to manifest. This is why those drug trials go through long-term testing on animals and then long-term human trials.
But that's not how vaccines work. We don't take them on a daily or weekly basis for years. The vaccine doesn't linger or accumulate in our bodies.
In cases where potential vaccines have had negative health effects, those effects have been observed within two months.
Ball first frames Biden's problem as being willing to let some of his agenda be killed by the filibuster. Bernie says that Biden can't snap his fingers and end the filibuster.
Ball then pivots to things Biden CAN do via executive order but hasn't yet (despite the long list of things he has).
It's hard to believe how thirsty my tomatillos and chiles are. I started a kitchen garden in 2018 which helped me understand farming a bit better in little ways. #fafdlstorm 1/8
But nothing compares to the way I've completely internalized the revolutionary nature of the invention of irrigation 600 years or so. 2/8
When it's hot and sunny and hasn't rained in weeks, the trees and shrubs and plants in my neighborhood stay green and plumped with turgor pressure, while my crops require watering every day and sometimes twice a day or they wilt in a matter of hours and die within days. 3/8
"The saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,” suggests that materialism drives us. It’s even harder to get a man to understand something when his community and identity depend on his not understanding it"
It's easy to point the way this is true among Trumpists and Republicans when it comes to COVID, masking, vaccines, Trump's corruption and incompetence, and the authoritarianism of Trumpism.
I'm not a fan of Sinema, but people are dragging her on this when it looks like she might get the $1.2 trillion bipartisan plan into the endzone while asking for some cuts to the $3.5 trillion plan (not torpedoing it).
Most people aren't old enough to remember, but there was a time two or three years ago when big spending bills were denominated in $100s of billions while $trillion infrastructure plans were the stuff of mirages and messaging bills.
I think there is a lot more room for federal spending and I'm really happy that the general consensus has moved in that direction. But it is not surprising to see pushback against sums considered science fiction just a few years back. The full $3.5 trillion was always unlikely.