are the subject of manpower development programs that will ultimately result in part of that labor supply moving out of the seasonal farm labor work. In looking to the future it is probably safe to assume that we have permanently turned away from programs of importing foreign labor to work in fruit and vegetable production [14]. It is also safe to assume that in the future as in the past there will be a genuine interest in minimizing drudgery. With regard to government manpower policies and programs, it is expected that the human resource development orientation will continue [1]. Given the potential for developing new technology that exists and the international trade implications of differences in costs of production in the various countries, a variety of alternatives are possible. In considering future implications for industry and government, one can be only somewhat suggestive. Industry The fruit and vegetable industry has been substituting capital for labor at a relatively rapid rate. This substitution has occurred because it has been profitable. In part, it has also been an effort to reduce uncertainty with regard to labor supply, which is one aspect of labor cost. The substitution has occurred essentially because the cost of labor has risen more than the cost of substitutable capital. If supply-price of labor continues to increase faster than that of capital, the substitution of capital for labor will continue unabated. But in the long run, being considered here, the decision with respect to substituting capital for labor is not merely one of comparing price-cost ratios for alternative methods of production. The industry, if it acts rationally, will consider the cost of developing new technology and the probable impact of new technology on profits in the industry. That is a complex process. Yet even with less than perfect information about the future values of such variables as wage rates, fringe benefits, probability of successful research, etc., it is likely that an intensive program to develop and to utilize new technology would be warranted. It is probably safe to assume that socioeconomic forces will make labor-saving technology even more economic in the two decades ahead than currently. If the direction and intensity of the socio-economic forces continue, it would seem to place a premium on efforts to decasualize the employment of seasonal labor in fruit and vegetable production and harvest. I suggested previously that decasualization might not be crucial in the immediate present or near future. But it seems reasonable to me that some form of decasualization will have widespread support in perhaps 15 years. We can highlight the difference between a systematic decasualized labor recruitment and the casual methods that currently exist by reference to an analogy with irrigation. When water is very cheap and can be wasted without cost, it can be applied crudely, flooding the field with enough to cover even the highest points. When water is expensive and excessive applications reduce yields, it becomes economic to apply it precisely with respect to location and quantity. In the operation of the casual labor market, labor tends to flow into the area of employment without any precise relationship to actual labor requirements. Time lost by workers because of inefficiently matching workers with jobs does not receive much attention. If lost time becomes a part of the labor cost, it will become more economical to match worker and job more precisely. I am expecting that in the future much more attention will be given to the annual income realized by farm workers, which will focus more attention to time lost in seeking work. On the other hand, matching workers and jobs more precisely will also require of the worker a more than casual attitude toward the job. Even under the most efficient methods of matching workers and jobs and the most efficient methods of shifting workers from region to region with a minimum loss of time, it will not be possible to provide full year employment for all workers employed at the peak of the season. This is the case for the country as a whole and it is also true for most states and smaller areas. Unless the number of workers that are needed at the peak of the season can be reduced dramatically there are likely to be many seasonal workers who do not realize the amount of employment desired and needed. On the other hand, as noted previously, each year an increasing proportion of those who do farm work for hire are not seeking full year employment. There may be opportunities for recruiting more seasonal farm workers from among this group--particularly among the youth. Thus, the long term implications of the manpower situation facing the fruit and vegetable industry are complex. The socio-economic forces are discouraging the continuation of migratory labor. Manpower development programs are seeking to increase nonfarm employment opportunities for the seasonal farm worker. The hired farm labor supply is increasingly made up of persons who do not seek full year employment. There is substantial rural unemployment, but pressures to increase farm wages are brisk. Finally, product prices and international competition do not offer easy avenues of adjustment. It is quite obvious that the implications of this set of circumstances lie in: (1) areas of labor recruitment and management; and (2) the intensive development of technology that will reduce costs and seasonality of employment in the industry. Government In looking to the future it seems reasonable to expect a continuation of public support for efforts to improve the welfare of the seasonal farm worker. It is probable that the seasonal farm worker will be brought under unemployment insurance programs and that collective bargaining legislation of some type will be adapted to agriculture. Beyond these expected developments, there are a wide range of implications for government policies and programs. Rational development of public policies and programs will require some kind of agreement on goals with respect to the fruit and vegetable industry. It will also require consideration of the interrelationships of goals and means of achieving these goals. If one of the goals of public policy with respect to the fruit and vegetable industry is the continued expansion of the industry and improvement of its competitive position in the international market, programs that result in price increases will be of limited attractiveness. If the goal of public policy were exclusively that of raising the standards of employment in fruit and vegetable production, then efforts to increase minimum wages, provide unemployment insurance coverage, etc., would receive first attention. The impact of higher cost on output and prices could be ignored. The declines in exports could be ignored, as could be increased imports into U.S. markets in response to higher prices. If the public goals include the improvement in the welfare of seasonal farm workers in the fruit and vegetable industry, maintaining our position in international markets and reducing rural poverty, then a more complex set of programs is likely to be appropriate. Such a set of goals would suggest a comprehensive long-term program. Such a program would include efforts to increase the efficiency with which workers and jobs are matched. Industry would be encouraged to develop labor recruitment and management procedures that improve its ability to compete for labor. The employment of students, housewives, and others who do not want full year employment for seasonal farm work would be encouraged. However, if the fruit and vegetable industry is to continue to supply domestic markets and maintain its position in international markets, and provide for a rising standard of employment for the labor force employed, then the factor of most fundamental importance in the long-run future is a brisk flow of new technology. New technology will permit lower cost of production with higher wage levels and reduced seasonality of employment. At the same time real enhancement in the welfare of the seasonal farm worker who is displaced by new technology calls for a new and better job--that is, expanded employment opportunities. Finally, it might be noted that a genuine concern for the welfare of farm workers as well as an awareness of the political and social climate suggests that efforts to develop new technology for the fruit and vegetable industry must be accompanied by equally serious efforts to meet the social and economic problems that accompany technological progress if public agencies such as the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are to cooperate in such efforts. REFERENCES CITED [1] Aller, Curtis C. "Manpower Development Programs for Farm People." Farm Labor in the United States. Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York: University Press, 1967, 115-135. Columbia [2] Cargill, B. F.; and Rossmiller, G. E., eds. Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization, Technological Implications. Mich. State Univ. RMC Rpt. No. 16, 1969. [3] Dolp, Franz. Decasualization of Seasonal Farm Labor. Information Series in Agr. Econ, No. 68-1, January, 1968. [4] Fuller, Varden. "A New Era for Farm Labor?" Industrial Relations. 6: (3) 285-302, May, 1967. [5] [6] ; and Beale, C. L. "Impact of Socio-economic Factors on Farm Labor Supply." Journal of Farm Economics. 49:(5)1237-1243, December, 1967. "Farm Manpower Policy." Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York: 97-114. Farm Labor in the United States. [7] Hathaway, D. E.; and Perkins, B. E. "Farm Labor Mobility, Migration, and Income Distribution." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 50, May, 1968, 342-353. [8] Knebel, Stanley M. "Restrictive Admission Standards: Probable Impact on Mexican Alien Commuters." Farm Labor Developments. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, November, 1968, 8-20. [9] Mamer, J. W.; and Fuller, V. "Labor and the Economic Factors in Fruit [10] Nix, James C. "Characteristics of Mexican Immigrants Working on Farms." Farm Labor Developments. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, September-October, 1967, 36-41. [11] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Congressional Record. 55th Cong., 1st Sess., 30: (1)140. [12] [13] Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States. S. Rpt. No. 1006, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1968. Senate. The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States. S. Rpt. No. 91-83, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1969. [14] U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. ERS. The Hired Farm Working Force of 1967. Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 148, Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1948. Progress of the Beet-sugar Industry in the United States in 1904. Rpt. No. 80, Wash., D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905. [15] [16] U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Employment Security. Farm Labor Developments. National Rural Manpower Conference. June, 1969, 1-4. RURAL WORKER ADJUSTMENT TO URBAN LIFE An Assessment of the Research Varden Fuller UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY A JOINT PUBLICATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE NATIONAL MANPOWER POLICY TASK FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN |