Job Americans Won't Do?

I'm a huge fan of Comedy Central's faux-conservative pundit Stephen Colbert - although I initially had reservations about his latest stunt.

Teaming up with the United Federation of Farm Workers, he boldly challenged the ranks of America's unemployed (whom, until recently, I was one of) to fill the thousands of farm worker jobs advertised each and every autumn.

Their website is Take Our Jobs.

The stunt's meant to draw attention to the plight of illegal immigrants in this country, as three-quarters of all farm workers were born outside of the United States, and more than half of them are illegal immigrants.

The challenge to 'take our jobs' is a direct attack on the notion that 'illegal invaders' are taking jobs away from American citizens. The United Federation of Farm Workers argue that farm worker jobs truly are the jobs American citizens 'won't do.'

(And to prove that point, during the last recruitment drive to get the unemployed Americans to fill the thousands of vacancies, just three even bothered turning up to be interviewed.)

But to my mind, this stunt highlights an entirely different problem. We shouldn't be celebrating the fact that illegal aliens are willing to do the jobs that Americans 'won't do.' We should be wondering how - in a modern, industrialized economy - we allow an employment model to exist that basically precludes anybody but undocumented aliens and those coming from nations of extreme poverty.

Colbert revealed what the life of a farm worker is like and it's not pretty.

For a start, it's one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Laboring for half a day in the blazing sun leads to heat-stroke and death on frequent basis. Yet I don't think long hours, hard work or danger are the reasons American citizens are refusing to accept these jobs.

In addition to this backbreaking work, farm labors earn a pittance. Many farms aren't required to give even minimum wage and many are excluded from paying overtime as well. What's worse, smaller farms are even exempt from workers compensation - so if you collapse in the field from heat exhaustion, you can't ask your employer to cover your medical costs.

It's basically little more than slave labor - no great step up from how farm workers used to live during the reconstruction following the Civil War. The reason these are jobs 'no American would take' is because they're jobs no human being should take.

And it's wrong. It shouldn't be allowed.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm fairly conservative and a fierce supporter of the free market system - however I have stronger support for the principle of a living wage.

I believe, without exception, that if you hire somebody to work for you full time (for more than forty hours a week) you are morally - and should be legally - obligated to:

• Pay them a wage on which they can live.
• Provide them with basic medical insurance.
• Offer them the basic protections required by law.

The farming industry fails to provide farm laborers with any of those things, which is why it's entirely understandable that no American wants to take that work. They shouldn't have to.

And before they open their opinionated mouths, right-wing types who argue about 'the free market' need to remember that the farming industry in America doesn't really count as part of the 'free market' anyway.

It survives on billions of dollars of government subsidy each and every year and therefore shouldn't be subsidized any more by the blood and sweat of exploited workers.

Offer farm laborers decent wages, decent health coverage and basic protection and I guarantee that American citizens would happily brave the blazing heat and punishing hours. Americans aren't afraid of hard work - they just expect to be able to earn enough to live off doing it.

And if the farming industry can't afford to pay its workers what they owe them? Well, perhaps that says more about the farming industry than the immigration debate. Maybe those farms don't deserve to be in business, and maybe billions of dollars of federal subsidies would be better spent elsewhere.

It's harsh, I know - and don't get me wrong. I love farming. I grew up on a farm, the countryside is in my blood and one of the things I love about America is the fact that it still manages to be remarkably self-sufficient when it comes to food.

But even I - one of the biggest advocates of farming going - believe the era of the great American farm might be over if this is what they've reduced themselves to in order to make a profit.

As far as illegal immigration fits into this problem, it's a symptom - not the disease. If the farming industry was obligated to pay workers what it owed, either Americans would fill those jobs or the source of production would move overseas (as, for all those 'free market' advocates, perhaps it should.')

In either eventuality, it would end one of the biggest lures this nation has for illegal immigrants.

Obama to cut farm subsidies?

I grew up on a farm during the final days of the British farming industry.

In many ways, my parent's farm was a 'pet' farm. We farmed a small herd of Dexter cows (a rare breed unafflicted by BSE) and Wensleydale sheep (enormous sheep with Rastafarian wool.)

My parents received subsidies from the British government for farming these animals, but in general, we produced only enough meat for ourselves and to trade for the cost of slaughtering our animals. In short, we contributed very little to the British farming industry.

But it was a nice life. We raised happy animals and helped continue two rare breeds. If it wasn't for the farming subsidy, this wouldn't have been possible.

The same situation exists in America, where farmers are given subsidies to offset the fact that farming is pretty much a non-profit pursuit. These subsidies help keep the American farming industry going, but do warp the market dynamic. Milk and cheese, for example, are a protected market and the prices you pay in America are vastly inflated compared to abroad.

Now Obama is threatening to end the subsidies for farmers. Is this a good or a bad thing?

Well, part of me thinks it'll be a good thing. Despite being raised on a farm and sympathizing deeply with farmers, the fact is that America can't afford to continue operating a non-profit industry. American agriculture is geared more towards earning government subsidies than running profitably. That's why thousands of farmers have diverted their corn crop from corn flakes and turned it towards the production of subsidy-heavy ethanol.

This is great for farmers, but bad for the rest of us. Ethanol, for example, would be a cost-effective alternative to gasoline, were it not for the fact that government tariffs on imported ethanol and sugar have driven the price up far in excess of petrol.

The fact is, subsidies totally warp and manipulate the free market system - the one that's meant to keep prices down. If we didn't have them, American farmers would face a brutal period of readjustment, having to totally alter their business dynamic to remain competitive. It's sort of economic Darwinism. The Republicans are all for it (ironic, really, since they don't believe in real Darwinism.)

But that would mean, ultimately, that American consumers would reap the benefits. Cheaper food, from foreign sources.

However, on the other hand, it would temporarily (or permanently) devastate the economy of the American midwest. America is a glorious country in which agriculture remains one of the most important industries. Entire states are comprised of nothing but farmland and fields. If they didn't survive, it would be a tragedy.

Not to mention, I think there's something to be said for countries being able to feed themselves from domestic sources. Less than seventy years ago, Britain was isolated during World War II and the British farming industry was all that kept the country from starvation. If Hitler was resurrected today, the skeletal remains of British agriculture would drive the country to starvation in a matter of weeks.

So America's vast farming industry is, to a certain extent, a testament to the continued independent spirit of the United States. As long as the farming industry survives in America, so does a little bit of the American spirit.

And 'industry' is a very important word. For generations, America has had the largest economy in the world, supported mainly by America's industrial roots. Now, like the economies of Europe, America is turning towards a service-based economy. Maintaining a 'real' industry like farming goes some way to addressing that shortfall.

Obama's suggestion about eliminating subsidies does mean one thing, though. The Democrats are traditionally the party of subsidies and protectionism. The fact that Obama's bucking the trend might indicate that things really have changed in Washington - and whatever that means for American farmers, ultimately change is exactly what we voted for.