Farm Boy

Ignifluous Debilitation: For those of you reading along on the blog, it’s been a week, but for Clark and I, it’s been long enough to brew another pot of coffee- and, since Clark hasn’t been drinking any of the coffee, for me to get rid of the last pot- but we’re returning to hear his thoughts on immigration.

And I’m not here to sling mud, but, since it’s father’s day, I don’t think I could not ask a question that sort of bridges the gap between that subject and today, but your father worked with illegals on his farm, right?

Superman: Yes.

ID: So what are your thoughts on that?

(pause)

S: Illegal labor has become part of the reality of American farm work- particularly for small, non-corporate farms. Bigger farms, corporate farms, can afford to buy and operate massive modern farm equipment; they’re also helped by the proportional stacking of farm subsidies. My father’s farm- my mother’s farm, now- is at least statistically typical of a normal family farm in Kansas. Last year, he received a subsidy in the amount of about $1000; he needed that money, and he was grateful for the money, but at the same time, the company that’s been buying up smaller farms in the area, that has an annual yield into the millions, received a subsidy worth more than his entire farm is worth, land, equipment, and the house where he lived. The point of subsidy is supposed to be to help farmers make it through bad growing seasons, not to finance the expansion of megafarms.

ID: Do you have a problem with the idea of corporate consolidation?

S: Generally speaking, no. But I was raised on a small family farm; I learned the value of work on a small family farm. I’m biased, I think, against the idea that we’re losing that part of our heritage, and our history- and I certainly don’t like the idea of a megafarm.

And I’ve also seen the sinister side of corporations. Lex Luthor often abused his position in places of economic power- the specter of corporate consolidation placing too much power in a single individual’s hands is indeed a real, problem is too strong a word, but maybe dilemma. But no- I think consolidation can increase efficiency, which at the end of the day frees up resources that can be put to use elsewhere; my only caveat is that it’s important to be sure the human element isn’t forgotten, there. In the long run, people really are the most important resource- as workers and as consumers- without people, the concept of wealth is meaningless.

ID: You mentioned subsidies a moment ago, and it’s nice for once for you to be the one pushing hot button topics onto our agenda. So, having been both the beneficiary of and on the uneven end of subsidies, how do you view them?

S: I think any time you talk about subsidies there are really two different discussions. The first covers who and how much, and the second deals with where. Farm subsidies, as currently implemented, have a disproportionate effect on the market, providing lots of capital to large, wealthy growers, and providing little support to smaller, struggling growers. Small growers are already working against the advantages of economies of scale, but when you add to it the larger subsidies, it really becomes easy to understand why small farms have become an endangered species. It’s gotten so that smaller farms are sometimes binding themselves together in collectives to receive the same oversized benefits. Can you think of any other industry where entrepreneurs are forced to merge in order to compete?

ID: Aside from the porn industry, no.

S: Cute. My point is I do think some kind of reform is preferable on the first question. On the second, well, broadly speaking, farm subsidies in this country are a good thing. The problem internationally with the way that subsidies are implemented, though, is they often pay a farmer to produce a crop at an artificially low “cost,” which disrupts the market because he can sell at an artificially low price and still make a profit. This is fine if the goal is simply to subsidize low prices in the country- then it’s just a socialized policy of spreading the increased burden of food prices more evenly across the nation- but once those artificially low prices leave the American market, they start to affect global crop prices, which disrupts markets worldwide- not to mention that it’s a waste of tax money.

It makes farmers in, say, Africa, where labor and production are actually cheaper, unable to compete with the artificially cheaper US agricultural products- which depress the value worldwide. It strangles out local farm industries which may be the only local labor available. It’s actually the same thing that illegal laborers coming into this country do, but in reverse.

ID: So you’re saying you’re against illegal laborers, then?

S: Put bluntly like that, yes, I’m against illegal laborers. But the solution isn’t as simple as push them back into Mexico and build a really high wall. I’d say we should have a two-pronged approach, maybe three. First, we need to go after the people who hire illegal laborers. Second, given that our system has, over the last hundred years or so, encouraged them to cross over, I think it would be a noble gesture, and there is some precedence for this, but to provide moving expenses for Mexicans or whomever to get back to their country. And the somewhat third prong would be to encourage trade with Mexico, but not at the bargain-basement prices, but to rewrite NAFTA with the caveat that Mexican goods have to be produced in conditions similar to American workplaces- that means safety, environmental. And over the next, say, ten years, you could mandate a minimum wage for goods bound for the US, until at year ten they reach the US minimum wage.
It makes Americans more competitive in the short term, and ensures better global competition in the long. And it could work.

We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Monday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.

Immigrant

Ignescent Diabetes: Last week you had an emotional moment, but I think I want to drag your good name through the mud again- wait, don’t make that face- this is a chance maybe for you to do some good, to put out the word, change minds. You’ve said you really sympathize with the immigrant experience, which which makes sense, given that, for all intents and purposes, yours is a mythic immigrant story. It’s also interesting to note that, until recently, yours was also an illegal immigration- that you were, no pun intended, an illegal alien- since your adopted parents never declared you to the INS.

Superman: Actually, the laws were a little more lax when I was "born"; my parents claimed that my mother gave birth to me at the family farm, and applied for a separate birth certificate and social security number. So legally

ID: But that was basically a lie, right? So really, up until your marriage to a US Citizen, you weren’t technically a citizen.

S: If I were to accept your premise, then I’m not now a citizen, either, because marrying a citizen only makes you eligible for citizenship. You still have to take the test, and I think there’s some fees involved…

ID: Okay, but I think my point is still basically there, even if you’re being crotchety today- that you’re uniquely attuned to respond to this. How do you feel about the current climate surrounding immigration?

S: I know you think you’re being cleverly divisive, but really, this is kind of a softball question. Historically, if you look at this country, and of course, all civilization, in times of economic hardship, people look for someone to blame. Classically, it’s been immigrants- foreigners, someone with just enough social or cultural or ethnic difference that you could claim it was someone who wasn’t like you whose fault it was. Look back at the Great Depression, and the mammoth uptick in deportations under Hoover. Hell, the 50s was a prosperous decade, but apparently not prosperous enough for Eisenhower, who rammed through the purely hateful “Operation Wetback”- it was actually called that- that’s still a black eye on our nation. But that we’re having similar issues today, people scapegoating immigrants, as if they were responsible for all of the economic woes of our nation isn’t surprising- though it is saddening to see it still going on today.

ID: Okay, granted, the anti-immigrant- and particularly anti-Mexican sentiment- is pretty indefensible, but it leads into the larger issue, and while the tone is often wrong, there is an economic argument at the heart of it, namely that illegal workers really do depress wages, that their work conditions are rarely kept to labor standards, that these workers can create a burden on social services- though I’d probably point out that a lot of illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes, often in the hope that it will help them later on when they want to become citizens. But the question is what do you think is the solution to illegal immigration?

S: You hate me, don’t you. Everyone else tries to give me an easier time, but you- I don’t think I’d like you if I met you even under other circumstances.

ID: I wasn’t under the impression you were fond of me under these ones.

S: Point. I think it’s important to recognize that illegal immigration isn’t the problem. It’s not. Illegal laborers are barnacles on the hulls of ships, but declaring a war on barnacles ignores the economic ecosystem that allows and even encourages them to thrive. Basically, they’re merely a symptom of our broken system.

The larger issue is that world trade is dysfunctional. The amount of money I spend on a nice dinner out with my wife in Metropolis could feed a family of four for a month in parts of Africa, could cover familial expenses for a week in parts of Mexico. The vast disparity in quality of life and cost of living is what drives this economic dysfunction.

Our current system creates a demand, on both sides of the equation. Farmers and a system that demands cheap agricultural products, just as an example, need cheap labor. But that labor that by our standards is cheap, by their standards is incredibly generous, and the small amounts they can squirrel away and send home amount to enough of a carrot to encourage them to act unlawfully. Dealing with it only from the supply side doesn’t eliminate the need- it’s like the cops seizing a heroin addict’s drugs- it doesn’t stop them from being heroin addicts, it just means they’re that much more desperate to fill their need the next go round.

ID: So you’re saying we’re addicted to cheap labor.

S: Yes, absolutely. It’s helped us maintain our lifestyle, because we can have artificially cheap food, build artificially cheap homes, buy artificially cheap goods from China- the American economy hasn’t kept pace with American desire, particularly on the lower end, but these sources have kept our perceived wealth propped up. We’ve all gotten used to living artificially well. The world is not as kind as it’s seemed to Americans. We’ve really been consuming more than our share of the world’s goods and resources, and at least some of our largesse has to come to an end- it’s just not sustainable.

ID: Okay… I think that all helps us frame the debate to your liking, but what’s the solution here?

S: I think enforcement has to play a part. And I don’t really consider myself a law and order person- at least not next to Bruce- but to curb it, what you need is strong regulation and fierce enforcement of the laws. That doesn’t mean abusive, coercive, or terroristic law enforcement policies- and our country, and I do take ownership and say it’s my country and partially my problem, as well, but our country has a history of resorting to domestic terror when dealing with illegal immigrants. And we’re better than that- we can and should continue to be and strive to be better than that.

ID: That tells us what you don’t want, but what do you think is the right approach?

S: I think immigration limits are probably necessary. Without them, people would leave poor countries and flood into rich ones- which would become poor as the distribution of that wealth thinned amongst a distended population. Strict enforcement of immigration limits comes in two ways: one, securing the border, which I honestly think the US has always done a decent job of, and two, in tight employment controls. This comes in both requiring proof of citizenship or eligibility to work from prospective employees in all fields, and in harsh penalties for those found skirting the law. Dry up that demand we talked about, and there won’t be any call whatsoever for a supply of cheap labor. This will, necessarily, increase the costs of goods and services across the country- but that’s the honest cost of living in America.

But more importantly, for our future and the future of the human race, what we must do is continue to develop the third world- the fastest way is to continue to encourage investment and competition in local economies, while cheaply sharing our technologies. It means setting aside the profit motive temporarily in those countries, offering up existing break throughs at or near cost to help kick-start their economic development- which in the long run is good for everyone, because it enhances worldwide production and increases total human wealth- which really is good for companies, because it means more potential customers down the line. And by working to equalize the quality of life and the cost of living across countries, we’d eliminate the draw of working illegally anywhere.

ID: My next questions a bit more contentious, and I’m thinking this discussion’s going to go long, so we’ll break it up, here, and return to it next week.

We’ll be trying to bring you a new section of the interview every Monday. Some of the questions have already been prepared by the interviewer, but to ask Superman a question, leave a comment or send an email to DeathofSuperman@gmail.com.