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.