Replies

“Sure, we can keep importing more and more illegal aliens and pay them 50 cents an hour more or less”

What the H%^$#@ do you think is being done in the domestic American sugar industry????

Yet, the wholesale price of domestic sugar is NOT derived as much from domestic labor costs in the industry as it is that they can get away with their higher wholesale price, because import tarrifs and quotas keep the available suppply down, protecting that price, not because it is impossible for it to be lower, doemstically, and not because it is impossible for domestic sugar producers to become more efficient than they are.

A portion of the higher prices for domestic sugar is money taken away from American manufacturers that use sugar, money they would gladly spend elsewhere in this economy if they did not have to pay those prices.

You sit here complaining about too many imports from other countries, while the artificially high sugar prices you are willing to support is going to lead, eventually, to finished product that use sugar that are now being made in Americs becoming products no longer made in America.

Hershey I know is one outfit that says that day is coming if the sugar quotas and tarriffs are not lowered.

I don't doubt that many illegal aliens are being payed under the table for their labor in the sugar industry, but I did not claim that higher wholesale price is derived from that. While I don't know the numbers of illegals in that industry, at least efforts are being made across the board to rein in those employers who are using such labor. Maybe not sufficient efforts, but better than nothing at this point.

The perverse side of the illegal immigrant labor issue is the fact that those savings are not being passed on to the consumer. That is likely true for most industries benefiting from cheap labor. It's not too difficult to see where those savings go.

You keep whining about raw materials pricing but that has little to do with the end cost of our products. Once again, reign in the outrageous regulations and absurd union costs, not to mention overhead from investor payouts (have to please those investors and cough up dividends, not a major problem but it has an effect that can't be ignored at all levels of a corporation) and employers (an issue that does exist, but not a major problem overall), and you'll get a better balance, IMO. There are a lot of factors to consider and the price of raw materials is low on the list.

Hershey can kiss my ass if they leave. I couldn't care less. That move will not come from raw material pricing. If they do move, there is no reason their finished product should also not have a tariff as their sidestepping the rules we have saddled ourselves with in this country should end up with that result. In your example, it is more than possible for a company to step in and replace Hershey if they are able to squash union uselessness (see Foreign Automakers for a very good example) and even more if they can in any way reduce the overbearing burden of excessive and unnecessary regulations.

The playing field can be leveled with occasional impositions of tariffs, and they should always be used sparingly, but again, the crying of those who bitch about not getting the lowest possible price is the song of ignorance, IMO. If I would see the benefit at the consumption level, I could be more for it, but that is not the result I've witnessed in my lifetime.