- 03 Jul 2019 16:56
#15015677
I understand what sharecropping is @Godstud. Keep in mind, I do have a bachelor's degree in business. The system you explained your wife as participating in is in fact "sharecropping" as that term is understood in US law. You may prefer a different term for purposes of vanity, but what you described is sharecropping.
I understand when your wife is involved in sharecropping, you feel that it warrants a different definition. Sharecropping is in fact what it is. Allow me to explain:
Neither do sharecroppers. Tenant farmers do rent the land. In US law, we distinguish between a sharecropper who does not own the land and does not pay to use it; and a tenant farmer who does not own the land, but does pay to use it.
This is an interesting distinction @Godstud, because under US law if you do not make any investment, you may not be considered an independent contractor. If the sharecropper is NOT and independent contractor, the landowner MUST provide minimum wage in the United States.
Sharecropping itself does not involve debt; however, unscrupulous landowners did practice a system of debt whereby they might recoup some or all of the profits paid to a sharecropper. As I noted, this was common among Mexican landowners. In the US, store owners who were not landowners might extend credit to sharecroppers if they knew of the sharecropping agreement. From your description, it sounds like in Thailand the workers have enough money to get through a growing season without the need to use credit to purchase their bare essentials.
Indeed. In the United States, we have laws in place to protect the workers from practices like this when they are not truly independent.
29 CFR § 780.330 - Sharecroppers and tenant farmers.
I haven't said it is unfair. In the US, what you are describing is still sharecropping. However, since you seem to exercise a high degree of control over what is grown, the sharecroppers would be entitled to at least minimum wage in the United States, even if the crop failed. Whereas, as you have described it, in Thailand, the worker is not entitled to minimum wage. You may be confused, because you are Canadian, and the term "sharecropping" in Canadian law does seem to conceptually be considered payment for the land.
Ontario: Lease Agreements: Crop Share Leases
The University of California has some insights into Marhsallian Inefficiency with respect to sharecropping. See Sharecropping
According to the University of California, the system your wife is using in Thailand is Marshallian inefficient, because you are absorbing all the costs and the sharecroppers are not absorbing any costs.
Godstud wrote:When you learn about what sharecropping actually is(what I explained was not it) and want to have an honest discussion, get back to me, @blackjack21 .
I understand what sharecropping is @Godstud. Keep in mind, I do have a bachelor's degree in business. The system you explained your wife as participating in is in fact "sharecropping" as that term is understood in US law. You may prefer a different term for purposes of vanity, but what you described is sharecropping.
Godstud wrote:Not sharecropping:
The Thais do not rent the land. They merely work there, so there is no investment on the part of the worker. There is no "debt". There is no responsibility not to fail. It's the same as working at any place where you get a cut of the profits.
The workers do not earn a fixed income, but get a straight up percentage of the gross income. This is an incentive to work efficiently and effectively. The norm being 40-50%. This is considered fair, considering that the owner invested in the land, paid for the planting, fertilizer, etc. It is very efficient and profitable to both the worker and land-owner. The workers not having any real responsibility to the land-owner. It's a payment agreement. Both gain if the crop is good.
It's like going fishing(See Deadliest Catch for an example of shared profits) and only getting money if you catch fish. You get a share of what you catch. That's not sharecropping.
I understand when your wife is involved in sharecropping, you feel that it warrants a different definition. Sharecropping is in fact what it is. Allow me to explain:
Godstud wrote:The Thais do not rent the land.
Neither do sharecroppers. Tenant farmers do rent the land. In US law, we distinguish between a sharecropper who does not own the land and does not pay to use it; and a tenant farmer who does not own the land, but does pay to use it.
Godstud wrote:They merely work there, so there is no investment on the part of the worker.
This is an interesting distinction @Godstud, because under US law if you do not make any investment, you may not be considered an independent contractor. If the sharecropper is NOT and independent contractor, the landowner MUST provide minimum wage in the United States.
Godstud wrote:There is no "debt".
Sharecropping itself does not involve debt; however, unscrupulous landowners did practice a system of debt whereby they might recoup some or all of the profits paid to a sharecropper. As I noted, this was common among Mexican landowners. In the US, store owners who were not landowners might extend credit to sharecroppers if they knew of the sharecropping agreement. From your description, it sounds like in Thailand the workers have enough money to get through a growing season without the need to use credit to purchase their bare essentials.
Godstud wrote:The workers do not earn a fixed income, but get a straight up percentage of the gross income.
Indeed. In the United States, we have laws in place to protect the workers from practices like this when they are not truly independent.
29 CFR § 780.330 - Sharecroppers and tenant farmers.
29 CFR § 780.330 wrote:§ 780.330 Sharecroppers and tenant farmers.
(a) The test of coverage for sharecroppers and tenant farmers is the same as that applied under the Act to determine whether any other person is an employee or not. Certain so-called sharecroppers or tenants whose work activities are closely guided by the landowner or his agent are covered. Those individuals called sharecroppers and tenants whose work is closely directed and who have no actual discretion in controlling farm operations are in fact employees by another name. True independent-contractor sharecroppers or tenant farmers who actually control their farm operations are not employees, but if they employ other workers they may be responsible as employers under the Act.
(b) In determining whether such individuals are employees or independent contractors, the criteria laid down by the courts in interpreting the Act's definitions of employment, such as those enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rutherford Food Corporation v. McComb, are utilized. This case, as well as others, made it clear that the answer to the question of whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the definitions in this Act lies in the relationship in its entirety, and is not determined by common law concepts. It does not depend upon isolated factors but on the “whole activity.” An employee is one who as a matter of economic reality follows the usual path of an employee. Each case must be decided on the basis of all facts and circumstances, and as an aid in the assessment, one considers such factors as the following:
(1) The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal's business;
(2) The permanency of the relationship;
(3) The opportunities for profit or loss;
(4) The initiative, judgment, or foresight exercised by the one who performs the services;
(5) The amount of investment; and
(6) The degree of control which the principal has in the situation.
(c) Where a tenant or sharecropper is found to be an employee, he and any members of his family who work with him on the crop are also to be included in the 500 man-day count of the owner or operator of the farm. Thus, where a sharecropper is an employee and his wife and children help in chopping cotton, all the family members are employees of the farm owner or operator and all their man-days of work are counted.
(d) On the other hand, a sharecropper or tenant who qualifies as a bona fide independent contractor is considered the same as any other employer, and only the man-days of agricultural labor performed by employees of such a sharecropper or tenant are counted toward the man-days used by him. If he does not meet the 500 man-day test, he is not required to pay his employees the minimum wage even though those employees are entitled to the minimum wage when working for a separate employer who met the man-day test.
Godstud wrote:This is considered fair, considering that the owner invested in the land, paid for the planting, fertilizer, etc.
I haven't said it is unfair. In the US, what you are describing is still sharecropping. However, since you seem to exercise a high degree of control over what is grown, the sharecroppers would be entitled to at least minimum wage in the United States, even if the crop failed. Whereas, as you have described it, in Thailand, the worker is not entitled to minimum wage. You may be confused, because you are Canadian, and the term "sharecropping" in Canadian law does seem to conceptually be considered payment for the land.
Ontario: Lease Agreements: Crop Share Leases
The University of California has some insights into Marhsallian Inefficiency with respect to sharecropping. See Sharecropping
Define sharecropping: a contract where output is shared with no corresponding sharing of all inputs,
i.e., the share in appropriation is different from the share in provision of some of the inputs (purchased
inputs are usually shared through profit sharing).
...
Puzzle of sharecropping: output sharing implies a disincentive to provide the inputs which are not
shared (e.g., labor and supervision by tenant; management and capital by landlord). It thus contains a source
of inefficiency, the “Marshallian inefficiency” of sharecropping. If the contract is inefficient, why is it
chosen?
According to the University of California, the system your wife is using in Thailand is Marshallian inefficient, because you are absorbing all the costs and the sharecroppers are not absorbing any costs.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden
You still don't fucking know what you're talking about. Your whole argument is predicated under the false presumption of exploitation. This is a false assumption made by someone who simply wants to troll and has nothing of value to bring to the topic.
Low classed people wish ill on others.
- By wat0n