The Great Divergence Caused by Emigration?

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 19:03.

If you read the current version of the Wikipedia article on “The Great Divergence”:

The Great Divergence is the period beginning in the 18th century in which the “West” (namely England, followed closely by the rest of Western Europe) clearly emerged as the most powerful region of the world. In the early 1700’s, many believe, Western Europe and East Asia were roughly similar materially, but coming up against Malthusian constraints (population exceeding food supply) to further growth. Due to the many technological advancements that took place in Europe (including the invention of the steam engine by Thomas Newcomen), The subsequent mechanization of many European industries, the wealth and power of the world shifted from Asia to Europe (specifically England). Many explanations have been offered for the Great Divergence. For example, Kenneth Pomeranz, in The Great Divergence (2000, Princeton University Press), emphasizes the proximity of coal deposits and the easily exploitable Americas. Other observers believe intrinsic features of European culture made it destined to surpass other regions, while Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, sees geography, with Europe’s geographical layout promoting competition which led to greater technological advancement, as being the ultimate factor. In contrast, according to Diamond, China’s layout allowed it to become precociously united which removed a major incentive for technological advancement, and allowing China to become subject to a single emperor’s arbitrary whim. In A Farewell to Alms Gregory Clark argues that it was cultural and genetic factors that allowed England to grow wealthy while others fell behind.

Seemingly every cause is listed…. every cause but the one implied by this recent sob story about how a poor unfortunate farmer has lost access to illegal aliens and as a result is turning to machines:

“We always assumed we could find the labor we would need,” said Mr. Bittner, who has managed Singer Farms since 1991. “We’re not making that assumption anymore.”

Mr. Bittner said he was planning to grow blueberries, or tart cherries for use in pies, because those crops could be harvested by machine and did not require migrant workers.

Others managing the fields and dairies of western New York State are starting to make the same calculation. For the last several years, crackdowns on illegal immigrants and the lack of comprehensive immigration reform have increased anxiety among the region’s farmers, many of whom rely on a migrant labor force from Latin America to work their fields. Some have begun making changes in their operations to reduce their reliance on that labor force…

Other farms are making large capital investments in mechanical systems that will allow them to cut their work force significantly. Fewer farmers are willing to buy neighboring properties, a traditional method of expansion for agricultural businesses.

It seems an obvious factor in the Great Divergence was the emigration of labor to the New World. The unfortunate fate of the Confederate South, importing vast numbers of Africans so as to reduce the incentive to industrialize, is widely recognized as contributing to its inability to win its war with the Union North.

Moreover, the New York Times seems to be telling us that the centralization of land ownership may be slowed down by the emigration of labor. This, too, would be unsurprising since when labor is more valued, laborers frequently become land owners and thereby become more participants than components of individualistic capitalism. When a laborer comes to into his own, he is often motivated to apply his “ground truth” knowledge, combined with his new capital, to systems optimizing his labor. The result: Yeoman farmer becomes Yeoman inventor.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 May 2008 22:26 | #

Turning the argument around, the peerless invention of European Man will re-assert itself when the cheap farm labour is forced to quit and return home, since not every one can grow crops that are currently machine-harvestable.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 May 2008 22:30 | #

Mechanization is good for the farmer, but bad for the food processor?

In a field of 9 cabbages, the farmer takes seven and pays the co-ethnics one cabbage for each three they harvest. Two genetic units accrue for each cabbage.

[7x2][1] + [1x2][1/4] + [1x2][1/4] = 15 units.

Employing Mexicans for the same wage as co-ethnics reduces the genetic benefit.

[7x2][1] + [1x2][0] + [1x2][0] = 14 units.

Reducing your harvest by 15% which increases its value by 10% provides a greater benefit to the mechanized farmer.

[7.65 cabbages x 2.2 genetic units][1] = 16.83 units.

It’s even better if he goes to full production, even if the cost falls again. However, the benefit may not accrue immediately because of the initial cost of the investment.

However, the food processor squawks loudest because even with the price increase losing twenty percent of its product is deleterious. [9x2][1] = 18 v. [7.2 x 2.2][1] = 15.84

However, not all processes can be automated.

Has post 1965 immigration to the United States boosted the genetic interests of the native born? This issue is not treated by the extensive economic and sociological literature on immigration, but it seems likely that some immigrants have enhanced the majority’s fitness through provision of comparatively low-priced expert services. Others have helped undercut uneconomic labor costs by providing a pliable low-cost pool of labor, and stimulated those industries responsible for providing education, housing and other infrastructure. These benefits are compatible with many immigrants being a net burden on the public purse and the jobs of the native born (Borjas, 1999; Smith & Edmonston, 1997).

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 28 May 2008 05:37 | #

Lincoln,

December 3, 1861; To Congress,

“Labor is prior to and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.”

In my opinion, Lincoln is using the term “labor” to mean the Yeoman farmer. I also think a point is made, regarding “capital” equaling the ownership of Slaves. Slaves were chattel/capital and here hangs one of the major reasons for the US Civil War. Slaves were not labor, they were capital and the Establishment of the South was not going to allow their wealth to be challenged by the Yeoman Tradition, to compete for land and wealth.

As mentioned above, by James, the North was industrialized much more than the South and hence, the outcome of that bloody and terrible brother war.

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 28 May 2008 08:55 | #

N.California,

Olive planting/harvesting, and a Yeoman attitude!

N. California is watching, watching with horror, as S. California slips away into a third world, hell.

The growers, ie. independent farmers, have taken notice. Technological adaptation is well underway…

http://www.oliveoilsource.com/harvesting.htm

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 28 May 2008 14:39 | #

And don’t forget the great compression-wage structure compression that is, betwwen the wealthy and the rest of us-which occured during WW11 when immigration was completely shut down.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38 | #

What does survivalism mean in a Post Peak world?

I’ve been reading Kunstler for several years now, and survival means any one of a thousand things. As always, I take a simple view, to survive in a PPW, will mean all things to all people.

To the city dweller survival, like war, will be random, you could get killed for a glass of water or a root of potatoes, I think the chances of survival will be much greater in America than they will in Europe.

Far from the maddening crowd is the best way to go, but you can’t do that in Europe but in America I think you could find sufficiently isolated spots in which to hole up. But what sort of a life will that be?

Will survival be a Mad Max scenario or will it be just a down sizing (die off) of what we have now?

Hey, this is getting scary - I’m off.