Farm Labor Markets: Discussion

These two papers come to the optimistic conclusions that the farm and nonfarm labor markets have become more integrated and are functioning so as to reduce the excess of labor in agriculture. Huffman expresses the hope that public policy will not shield agriculture from "needed long-term resource adjustments, especially the reduction of labor in agriculture." Martin shares the good news. However, we have to extend his reasoning a little to make explicit the area of agreement. Martin reviews the recent past with respect to labor relations in agriculture. He, like Huffman, finds good news in the evolution of events, We are evolving in agriculture a stable system of labor relations-at least such an outcome is in prospect. This new style of labor relations most fully developed in California, where the enactment of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975 facilitates the development of unionization and collective bargaining. The initial period has been a little unstable, but Martin concludes "after the resolution of shortterm initiation problems, agricultural labor relations promise to achieve a degree of stability at least congruent with the stability of agriculture." Martin does not argue directly that a reduction of labor inputs in agriculture is an outcome likely to be associated with an expansion of labor relations carried on under a regimen of collective bargaining. But he expects the labor force mobilized to shrink in size as more employment per worker is achieved under collective bargaining. An effective union will tend to reserve employment for those members who have more seniority. Both authors thus are favorably disposed toward a reduction of labor in agriculture. Although both union rationing of jobs among members and the market mechanism will tend to shift human resources out of agriculture, we should recognize these two systems work in quite different ways. Both are functioning simultaneously in the nonfarm economy currently. Economists could contribute to rational public decision making by discussion and analysis of the efficiency and equity of these two systems for allocating human resources among occupations. The evidence offered to support the optimistic conclusions warrants some comment. The main bits of evidence are a reduction in per capita disposable income differentials, the increased tendency for those who work on the farm to reside elsewhere, and the increasing proportion of farm operators who do nonfarm work. These bits of evidence may be consistent with the proposition that farm and nonfarm labor markets have become more integrated. But had the wage differentials between farm and nonfarm work, say, between farm and factory work, been examined, the evidence supporting integration would not have been so convincing. Several conflicting trends may be operative at the same time. The wage rate differential between farm and factory seems to have remained relatively constant over the past two decades, in California and in the nation as a whole. Yet here in California the main exodus of human resources from agriculture has been in the farm operator and family labor category. Average annual employment of hired workers has remained relatively stable. With regard to the increased number of individuals who do both farm and nonfarm