I'm torn on this one. I want immigrants to be able to come to the US, but I don't want them exploited in anyway. If these workers are deported it would shine a light on the industries that exploit them very quickly. It would be at the expense of the current workers. I wonder what they're currently making pay wise.
If apparently we can't afford to produce food without exploiting low paid immigrants then either the people running the farms are money grubbing dickheads or there's something very wrong with how society functions.
Here in US i think it's more complicated than that. The farming is very large scale, most of the work is done by machinery. Some of the crops though need to be picked by hand. There is a migratory (within the US) workforce that moves to where the seasonal work is. Farm hands that sleep in a loft in the barn and see the crop through from seed to harvest isn't a thing. I learned this because I had friends who did this. Live in a tent, get paid for what you produce, move on to the next crop. No federal taxes, low cost of living. Apples in Washington, oranges in Florida, blueberries in Maine, clean fish in Alaska.I even met people who worked on crab boats and couldn't understand why it was so dangerous until I saw the TV show Dangerous Catch. Americans would rather work at Walmart. Immigrants will happily do it then head back home where the money they earned will go farther. NAFTA stole a lot of the agricultural work from Mexico, they're doing the same work just further from home. I don't know for sure but they may not be getting paid any less than an American that does the same job.
Caveat: I garnered this information a long time ago and may be outdated. IMO US immigration laws need to be updated and enforced. Political polarization is making this impossible. Being honest about the situation is the first step.
The article discusses that. H-2A visa programme can be used for seasonal work.
The entire animal husbandry industry all the way through slaughter, requires workers that show up daily.
I suppose it might be possible to have seasonal slaughters but milk and all the subsequent dairy products are done.
And any vegans that think is for the best, keep in mind it involves a genocidal like slaughter of all those dairy animals occurring within hours of workers being unavailable.
Feel free to show you really give a shit about these animals by getting ready to purchase them from these farmers and care for them for the remainder of the animal's life.
And any vegans that think is for the best, keep in mind it involves a genocidal like slaughter of all those dairy animals occurring within hours of workers being unavailable.
Ok, but they'd probably it would be only once, instead of the current unending cycle.
I know plenty of people with degrees who are dunber than a bag of hammers and less than half as useful.
Our world is complex and many people are all too eager to remind us that they really are just animals shoved into t-shirts and pants. Unfortunately, the solution will never be to take anyone’s voice away so we’re going to be stuck in some shitty places like this until we can figure out to make this shit work better.
Universal suffrage would be under direct attack if such a thing were imposed. However, it would make more sense for people who wish to run for public office to have such a condition, with allowance made for relevant life experience in lieu of a formal education.
I don't expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means "plant-based", not "vegan". "Plant-based" is a functional description, while "vegan" is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences. The dairy farmer isn't saying that everyone has to renounce animal abuse. They are simply saying that it won't be economical to commit atrocity for money any longer.
I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.
Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between "plant-based" and "vegan" here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only "plant based" look different in any way?
Jerkface is making a remark on the character of the farmer. A harsh one based on his profession, more-so than the outcome of the meaning of his words… dairy is not as immaculate as most were led to believe.
Neither of them really describe "a" diet. I don't consume alcohol. Is that a diet? You don't consume antifreeze, even though it tastes really really good. Is that a diet? "Not consuming animal products" is not a diet.
"Plant-based" is a characteristic of an infinite number of diets or other practices; those that exclude animal products. "Vegan" is a characteristic of a person; one that conducts themselves according to a specific moral perspective on interactions with animals. A diet is vegan iff (ie if and only if) there was a moral question in its practice. It describes the justification, and using it to talk about only the outcome is exactly what I am saying is incorrect.