Farm labor moving to Mexico. Bye bye.

According to a NY Times article, farmers are moving their fields to Mexico because they can't get enough Mexican immigrants to work the fields in the U.S., perhaps partially due to a crack down on the hiring of illegal workers.

Some might say "oh no! America is losing jobs!" But these are jobs that no one wants to do anyway. America saves a lot of money by outsourcing the farming to Mexico. We don't have to pay $10,000 per year per kid to educate the workers' children, we don't have to pay them welfare or social security, and they don't get free emergency medical care at our hospitals increasing the cost of our medical insurance.

Furthermore, farming tends to be barely profitable without generous federal farm subsidies. Moving farms to Mexico might save a lot of money in farm subsidies (but I'm not sure exactly how that program works).

It seems like a winning situation for America, and Mexico even benefits too.

Comments

[Steve Miller]

Your last line makes it sound like trade is only occasionally positive-sum.

[Half Sigma]

Positive sum doesn't always mean positive for BOTH parties, only that the net effect is positive.

[K]

Exactly. We're talking about jobs that:
1. Don't pay enough to support an American.
2. Are almost never done by Americans (or even legal aliens)

Why even count these jobs as part of the "American" labor force? Actually, in the 1980's, we measured GNP, in which case these earnings would not count for America, but they are part of GDP, which we use now.

And, to your subsidies, don't forget the farmers that asked their county to build low-cost public housing for their workers.

Not to mention that *real* economics is concerned with "utility," i.e., overall happiness. It seems like discussing non-economic "quality of life" issues these days is worse than belching and grabbing your crotch in church. But, certis paribus, who doesn't prefer less pollution, lower crime, fewer uninsured motorists, better schools, and the ability to communicate with their neighbors in English?

Even *if* these jobs were somehow a net benefit to the community, I'd prefer to live on $50,000/yr in a peaceful, clean, low-crime, English-speaking town than $50,500/year in a polluted, crime-ridden Spanish-speaking slum.

[Steve Miller]

Positive sum may not necessarily mean that both parties gain, but in the case of voluntary trade, it certainly does. The only losers, ever, are third parties. It should be obvious that if Business A decides to outsource production to the workers of Country B, then both Business A and workers B have gained.

[Turambar]

Nice puff piece by the Times, perhaps they missed this quote:
"He acknowledges that wages are much lower in Mexico; he pays $11 a day here as opposed to about $9 an hour in California."
Maybe this is about something other than immigration?

but what is up with this:
"He trained his Mexican field crews to wear hair nets, arm sheaths and sanitized gloves, and held drills on the correct use of portable toilets."

Toilet drills?

How can they justify the title "Short on Labor, Farmers in U.S. Shift to Mexico" when the feature of the story, Steve Scaroni, never said that he was short on labor in the US? What he said was that he was afraid of immigration raids and being liable if his workers were not here legally.

The NYT has tried this zone flooding before trying to stir up fears of an imminent crisis, as Mickey Kaus notes:

The New York Times, meanwhile, sends Lisa Foderaro out to find apples rotting on the trees, but so far she is only able to report "new fears" of a labor shortage.

" For now, both [Hudson Valley applegrowers] Mr. Crist and Mr. Roe say they have enough pickers for the initial harvest. Workers are now plucking Ginger Golds, one of the first varieties to ripen, and placing them in wooden bins that each hold 2,000 to 3,000 apples."

Sigh. ... Can't Essential Worker Immigration Coalition come up with a pile of rotting fruit somewhere? ...

[miles]

Great post, and so true Sigma.

[The Engineer]

How can you just move a farm to Mexico?

I've lived and worked in Mexico. It's a high desert! Nothing grows there!

That's why you need a guest worker program for agriculture. You need to bring the workers to the land, not the other way around.

"I've lived and worked in Mexico. It's a high desert! Nothing grows there..."

Not really true. Plenty of mexican produce in the supermercado:

http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/topproduction.html?lang=en&country=138&year=2005

[K]

"guest worker"

I find the "guest worker" concept morally repugnant. Too close to slavery. I do think the US citizens have a right to choose who they will allow into the country and that the President is obligated to enforce the law. I don't think that the world's 6 billion étrangers have a right to enter the US if citizens object to their presence.

But I creating a special legal class of "non persons" offends me on both religious, and humanitarian justice grounds. Not to mention, it seems very antithetical to American political philosophies and values.

But I agree that we can't ignore the realities of agriculture.

I too find the story suspicious, however:
1. Possible differences in climate and soil
2. How easy is it for a gringo to just swing in and start up a large farm? Mexico actually enforces it's law on Americans, despite shaming any similar attempts by the US.

[David Alexander]

2. How easy is it for a gringo to just swing in and start up a large farm? Mexico actually enforces it's law on Americans, despite shaming any similar attempts by the US.

IIRC, said gringos are renting or leasing the land from Mexican landholders and using technologically advanced irrigation methods to water the plants. It's no different that the techniques used in California deserts to irrigate plants.

BTW, it's still a wash because the illegal immigrants will still come because some people would rather hop the fence and work for $10/hr cutting grass or doing construction work or cleaning after people than to work for $10/day in Mexico.

[David Alexander]

It seems like a winning situation for America, and Mexico even benefits too.

In light of all the recent recalls for food recently and the lack of inspection of imported food, nationalists would claim that further importation of food from outside of the US is shameful and wrong and a sign of our decadence, greed, and declining power.

"In light of all the recent recalls for food recently and the lack of inspection of imported food, nationalists would claim that further importation of food from outside of the US is shameful and wrong and a sign of our decadence, greed, and declining power."

I'm worried about the poisoned toothpaste, lead-tainted barbie dolls and that fact that microwave popcorn can cause cancer!

P.S. does anyone remember the cyanide in the grapes scare (Chilean origin, I think) or Tropical Fantasy soda (homegrown hysteria in da hood)? I love consumer panic.

[Kurt9]

I have a question that the NYTimes article fails to ask. Where are the Mexican farmers to cultivate their own land? Presummably someone owns the land that the American farmers are using to grow crops on. Why aren't those land owners cultivating the land and making all of the profit from them themselves?

[Jim Beam]

There's a lot of talk on this blog about "outsourcing of low paying and high paying jobs", " the increasing pool of labor" and how it's contributing to the "growing wealth disparity" in the USA.

These assertions imply that we outsource more jobs than we insource. There's never anything on this site about insourcing and how it's increasing job opportunities along with the standard of living.

After all, I do work for a German company.

[Peter]

Where are the Mexican farmers to cultivate their own land? Presummably someone owns the land that the American farmers are using to grow crops on. Why aren't those land owners cultivating the land and making all of the profit from them themselves?

It's probably a lower-risk strategy to rent your land for other people to cultivate.

[Ed]

At the end of the Civil War, a few diehard Confederates moved to Mexico and Brazil. Slavery was still legal in Brazil, and workers had so few rights in Mexico that you could something similar to the same set up. The ex-Confederates even jump started the Brazilian coffee industry.

For some reason, I'm reminded of this history by the NY Times story.

[David Alexander]

It's probably a lower-risk strategy to rent your land for other people to cultivate.

It's generally standard practice in poorer nations like this for landowners to rent the land for a small, yet sizable profit than to get dirty, and bother with running the farm himself. For the landowners, there's real social incentive to bother with making the farm more productive.

IIRC, it's standard practice in Haiti, and in my case, our plantation was seized by the sharecroppers who rented it when my grandmother moved to the states in the late 1970s. Sadly, we have been unable to reclaim our property or use our family crypt.

"At the end of the Civil War, a few diehard Confederates moved to Mexico and Brazil. Slavery was still legal in Brazil, and workers had so few rights in Mexico that you could something similar to the same set up. The ex-Confederates even jump started the Brazilian coffee industry.

For some reason, I'm reminded of this history by the NY Times story."

There is a movie called "The Undefeated" about confederates who decide to move to Mexcio after the Civil War. It is an OK movie, but not as good as "Major Dundee" which had a group of ex-confederate soldiers and Union men head down to Mexcio to look for Indian raiders. It has a good cast, is well-done and worth 2 hours on a Sunday afternoon on the couch with a few beers.

[Dragon Horse]

"I find the "guest worker" concept morally repugnant. Too close to slavery. I do think the US citizens have a right to choose who they will allow into the country and that the President is obligated to enforce the law. I don't think that the world's 6 billion étrangers have a right to enter the US if citizens object to their presence."

K:

No one forces these people to come here and they are paid. It is not slavery. Serfdom...maybe but they have a choice to leave at any time and go home.

In the end there life is much better here as a "guest worker" than back home.

In reality I think what is morally repugnant is that we allow illegal immigrants and Mexican guest workers to transfer money back to Mexico. The effect of this is:

1) We are subsidizing Mexican classicism and racism.

Why?

Don't you ever wonder why the average illegal Mexican looks nearly pure Amerindian but the Mexican elites look European or close to it?

When we send money back and it goes to their families they spend that money in the stores owned by the elites, making them richer.

Meanwhile everyone eats and the Elites don't need to reform Mexico.

If we cut that money off, and made people show legal residency before remitting funds Mexico would be a pressure cooker. Elites will reform or face a revolution.

We do know favors by subsidizing corruption and racism.

[K]

DH, I agree with you that the open border policies enable corruption and racism to continue in Mexico. Many people think I'm a "big meanie" for wanting Mexicans to stay home...but depopulating the village, separating families, and encouraging people to risk death crossing a desert to work in a country whose culture they dislike and language they don't speak is hardly an ideal humanitarian policy.

The government of Mexico has overt, stated policies of effectively colonizing the US with its poor, complete with consulates in every major American city.

As a Mexican jefe recently said,

"Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."

[bbartlog]

Where are the Mexican farmers to cultivate their own land?

Quite possibly the outsiders (Americans) are providing the capital to put in drip irrigation systems or other improvements without which no one could farm the land profitably. So this looks like a win/win situation.

[Gannon]

Con todo respeto, la mayoría de las opiniones sobre México parecen provenir de personas que nunca han estado en ese país, sino que tienen su origen en una sala de clases de una Universidad Liberal con un profesor marxista (socialista real). Debo recordarles que México tiene un producto interno bruto relativamente alta de unos 10.000 dólares, y los costos de vida son inferiores que en EEUU, se asemeja mucho más a EEUU que a un país africano. Es efectivo que las diferencias de clases son más marcadas, pero esto se debe a la distinta empleabilidad de los sujetos en cuestión.

Que milagro! Gannon has written a post that's not about how much better it would be for American society if old guys could bang & marry 15-year-olds. You know, like in impressive, advanced societies like Mexico.

[David Alexander]

After translating your comments, you admittedly do have a point. By poor, non-white standards, Mexico is "rich" when compared to say Africa or my native Haiti. Mexico City even has a well defined, large subway system that's bigger than DC's system, the second largest in the United States. The big problem in Mexico is that while Mexico City is rich and some of the tourist areas are doing decently, the rural country side is stuck in deep poverty, and unlike thr urban areas which are "white", the rural countryside is composed mostly of Amerindians some of which don't even speak any Spanish and still no differently than the way they were found by Spanish conquistadors. Unlike Brazil which is another country in a similar situation, poor Mexicans who can't function in Mexico "hop" over a fence to come into the US. In contrast, the Brazilians (and other citizens of middle income nations) have to get VISAs and go thru minimal background checks in order to set foot in the US.

BTW, a few people economists have stated that Mexico's economy would have grown more, but the rise of China has eaten into potential growth since it's so much cheaper and easier to use China. In turn, Mexico has underinvested in education, so it hasn't made the leap into higher technology manufacturing that other middle income nations have done to stave off collapse. Essentially, Mexico's elite is rather lazy and would peruse the easy solution of pawning off their poor and unwanted on the United States instead of doing to harder and dirtier work of educating them and providing jobs in Mexico for them.

[Kurt9]

It's generally standard practice in poorer nations like this for landowners to rent the land for a small, yet sizable profit than to get dirty, and bother with running the farm himself. For the landowners, there's real social incentive to bother with making the farm more productive.

This may be true, but it strikes me that something is very pathological about Mexico that they would need/allow American nationals to run their agriculture. Yes, it may make sense for the land owners to rent out their land than to work it themselves, but why are their no Mexicans stepping up to the plate to do this. It seems to me that this is an entrepreneurial opportunity either for the Mexicans who would otherwise work for whomever is the "farmer" or for other farmers to work these farms and make more money.

Perhaps there is no capital or banking available for Mexican people themselves to rent out the land and farm it. I can only guess. I have been to Mexico very few times as a tourist and do not know much about the place.

If this was China, there would be plenty of Chinese people willing to step up to the plate and play the role of "farmer" or "overseer" or whatever you call the role the American farmers are playing here.

It just that there is something about this story that does not make sense to me.

[Kurt9]

David Alexander,

Thats my other question about Mexico. Since all of the cheap labor work has gone to China, why hasn't the country moved up the ladder, like the Asian countries have. I mean, Taiwan used to be the cheap labor place. Then it got expensive and they moved up into technology-based industries. Same for Korea, Singapore, and everywhere else I have visited or lived in.

Why hasn't Mexico done this? Perhaps I am ignorant here, as I have lived and worked through out Asia for 10 years and go their often on business, but have essentially no experience or knowledge of Latin America.

The human biodiversity people have an explanation for this. Is this one you believe?

Why hasn't Mexico done this? Perhaps I am ignorant here, as I have lived and worked through out Asia for 10 years and go their often on business, but have essentially no experience or knowledge of Latin America.

Why hasn't Africa moved up the ladder either? Until the corrupt governments in Mexico and elsewhere change their ways, little will change there. Yet we waste BILLIONS of dollars in foreign aid.

[Kurt9]

Yes, but Asian governments are corrupt as well. China is considered to be very corrupt, by international standards, yet they move along economically and technologically. Even South Koreans can be corrupt. A multi-story shopping mall collapsed in 1996. It turned out that the building inspectors were on the take from the construction companies. Japan has a real doozy of a corruption issue in their construction industy. When I went there in late 2005, the newpapers were full of stories about an architect (Mr. Aneiha) who had faked his calculations for the earthquake resistance of the buildings he designed. This ment that several hundred buildings had to be condemned and rebuilt. The scandal spread far beyond Aheiha as much of the contruction industry is complicit in this (buildings, elevated expressways, elevated raillines, etc.). It is a very big issue in Japan right now, as many people think the Tokyo area is due for a massive earthquake in the near future.

Corruption is as Asian as it is African and Latin American. So, I'm not sure that the differential rates of development can be attributed to corruption.

[Kurt9]

The problem I have with the human biodiversity explanation with the differential rates of development between, say, China, and Latin American and Africa is that many of things people say about the Latinos and Africans being hopelessly incapable of development were said by many westerners about East Asians in the 1950's and early 1960's. East Asian were deemed hopelessly incapable of economic development by many Western experts at that time (no work ethic, untrammeled procreation, etc, etc.). Today, they are the most dynamic people on the planet.

[Gannon]

Just for the record, I never said that old men should marry teen girls. What I believe is that consentual relationships between teen girls and young men in their twenties
(not older than 35 at most)should not be criminalized, because a)these marriages have been the basis of society for centuries
b)a lot of teen girls are attracted to men in their twenties (specially early twenties) and have the maturity to consent.

a)these marriages have been the basis of society for centuries

Not American society, sorry. The average age gap between men & women who marry in the US has always been rather small (estimates range about 3-5 yrs in the 1800s, less so now). People have always tended to marry their peers. Considering where the US is now compared to countries (like in Latin America or Africa) where it is normal for girls to marry in their teens, I'll stick with our traditions, thanks.

[Gannon]

"Considering where the US is now compared to countries (like in Latin America or Africa) where it is normal for girls to marry in their teens, I'll stick with our traditions, thanks"
You aren't proving causation. I'm also not advocating it should be the rule. But it is unfair to criminalize the 10% of relationships that are that way. By the way, I didn't suggest Latinamerican laws as example. If you are looking for examples, I would suggest Spanish, Italian or even the German law. All I'm saying is that with earlier sexualization and menarche age of consent of 14 is more realistic and just than 16/18. And if you think that sending black 17 year old footballplayers for receiving a consentual felatio from a 15 year old girl, I don't share your sense of judgement. People, once they are sexually mature, have the right to marry and live their sexuality. And sexual maturity for gilrs is at around 14 and for boys at around 15716, like it or not.

Actually, the point is that what you're suggesting (teen girls marrying men up to age 35) is no where near the norm in American society. It has never been the norm in American society. It will never be as teen girls are not crying out for marriage to older men & 90% of American parents would be horrified at the very suggestion.

Girls who marry so young in the US are, to be blunt, white trailer trash or poor Latin American immigrants who have gotten knocked up. What you are suggesting is considered low-class behavior that is primarily indulged in by people at the bottom of society who have no future.

It is not part of American culture. Just get over it. And if you can't understand how marriage in one's teens affects a girl's education, career, number of children, income, etc. and how this in turn affects GDP, you need to do some reading.

[Gannon]

Look, I think you missunderstood me on some points. I don't think age diferences over 12 years are great, but I think that for the male being 5 to 12 years older is pretty standard. I'm not saying what people should do or shouldn't do, but let's say if a 15 year old girls wants to have a 23 year old boyfriend that relationship should not constitute a felony, as long as it is consentual. That is unjust and unfair. In Italy there aren't hordes of abuse stories, but if a highschool girl wants a university boyfriend he isn't put into jail. And I can assure you one thing: countries where women put off having children until they are 30 will be irrelevant in half a century anyway.

I think that for the male being 5 to 12 years older is pretty standard.

Not here. 2-3 years is the norm.

let's say if a 15 year old girls wants to have a 23 year old boyfriend that relationship should not constitute a felony

Actually, a 15 yr old is a minor who is dependent on & the legal ward of her parents. She doesn't get to decide whether she dates a 23 yr old (and most teens girls are not looking to date 20+ men, sorry) - and I can assure you that many, many fathers would not permit this - that scenario might be their worst nightmare. Furthermore, 23 yr old men in the US typically date their early-20's female counterparts, who are also unlikely to be married.

Finally, a 23 yr old man who dates 15 yr old girl would be seen as abnormal, a predator, someone to keep an eye on. What about this do you not understand? Cultures are different, with different rules about what's acceptable. What's okay in Italy might not be here and what's okay here might be considered outrageous somewhere else. And that's fine - Vive le difference!

And I can assure you one thing: countries where women put off having children until they are 30 will be irrelevant in half a century anyway.

Um yeah - in other words, the countries that are responsible for the vast majority of the world's wealth & continuing progress in technology, medicine, etc. will be irrelevant & fall under the sway of those high IQ, industrial powerhouses of Latin America & the Middle East. Whatever.

This is the natural progression of things - delayed childbirth & marriage is the fate of any society that becomes wealthy.

Just out of curiosity - if teen girls are dating men in their 20's, who are teen boys supposed to concentrate their romantic attentions on? Nine year olds?

[Gannon]

"Just out of curiosity - if teen girls are dating men in their 20's, who are teen boys supposed to concentrate their romantic attentions on? Nine year olds?"
I didn't said it should be the standard. But if 20% of middteen girls want to date men in their early twenties, there is no reason for it to be criminalized, as long as there is no abuse (and a mere age difference does not necesarily constitute abuse). But I will try to directly answer your question: The twentysomething men don't have it easy, because their female counterparts are massively persued by thirty something and even succesful fortysomething men. Pretty much every men who thinks he can get away with it covets twentysomething women. Therefore, allowing twentysomething men dating HS girls would ease off pressure. And 15 year old boys can date 12-13 year old girls fo all I care. And 12 year old boys only want to play PS3 anyway...
A little more serious answer, most male teens are too childish for their female counterparts anyway.
But the fundamental difference between you and me is that you consider 14-17 year old girls as children, while I consider them semiadults and are willing to confer them limited rights as an appropiate translation to adulthood, specially if they have the explicit aithorization of their parents. And never forget that WORLDWIDE age of consent is at around 15, and that age of consent (age when you have reached sexual maturity), age of criminal responsibility (age when you clearly distinguish between good and evil, tends to be the same as age of consent) and age of majority (age when you could buy and sell land)have been different throughout western history.
(used to be 12-21, now it's 14-18, that's perfectly fine for me, but the US wants to jail 9 year old and forbid sex to 17 year olds, that's with all due respect ridiculous.)
And any sex with prepubescent children should be strongly criminalized.

[Mike]

...I've lived and worked in Mexico. It's a high desert! Nothing grows there!

Clearly you've never seen the apple orchards in north-central Washington.

there is no reason for it to be criminalized, as long as there is no abuse

I'd love to see how, short of physical violence, the legal system could define "abuse" & then write that into a law that would stand up in court.

We have these laws because that's how Americans want it. Americans do not want their teenage daughters screwing men in their 20s. They feel it is destructive for the girl, who do to her youth & inexperience, is particularly vulnerable. This also applies to sex between teen boys & teen girls, but is particularly acute when an older man is involved.

Contrary to what feminists & liberals would love us to believe, girls & boys are not the same. The massive amount of studies done on sexually active teens in the US all back up the fact that having sex as teenagers affects girls much more negatively than boys. This is just reality.

Your argument to Mr. & Mrs. Average American "Some men, let's say up to age 35, can't get laid with women their own age (well...they could if they a) repaired whatever personal deficiencies are repelling women in their peer group or b) realized that their standards are too high & they are aiming for the girls that are way out of their league but never mind that) Anyway, to solve this problem, we should overturn age of consent laws so your teenage daughters could legally serve as sexual outlets for these men, who shall we remember, are rejected by women their own age. Also, your teens are hotter. So, how about it?"

Amazingly, the Mr. & Mrs. will probably find your suggestion ridiculous & not very compelling for the simple reason that the penises of these older men & their desire to put them in attractive young females are not considered as important as the welfare of underage girls & the potential harm such interactions might cause them.

Stop thinking about your penis and look at it from the perspective of people who are solely coming from a place of love & concern for the girl in question & you might get it. They have very little to gain from encouraging their teenage daughters to have sex with older men, but much much much to lose if things go wrong.

[Gannon]

First of all, when debating people shouldn't insult each other. Also, I don't consider myself radical, I just believe that that 14 is more realistic and just than the standard 16. That's just two years.
I'm not encouraging anything, but criminal law is ultima ratio, and once people reach sexual maturity they should be able to at least dispose of their sexuality in consentual relationships, that's basic NATURAL LAW according to Aristoteles, Tomás de Aquina and so on (and even the UN). Also, sex is not a harmful activity (once reached puberty that is), MODERN Christian morality is deceiving you on that one, but to be enjoyed. Also, I'm not sure where you live but I'm in my early/middtwenties and do get hit on by girls in their teens from time to time. A lot of girls do like somewhat older men. In the end, it's about free will, free choices and that kind of stuff. I believe in NATURAL LAW, you don't. If two people trully love each other the state shouldn't outlaw it. In the end, it's about love and justice.
And on a personal level, I believe men should marry younger women from the beginning, intead of divorcing the first one and then marrying the 12 years younger one when they are forty.

That you consider it an insult when I repeat your arguments back to you minus the ribbons & flowers speaks volumes.

and once people reach sexual maturity they should be able to at least dispose of their sexuality in consentual relationships

Being physically sexually mature is not the same as being mentally/emotionally mature enough to have sex. Similarly, that teen girls can biologically give birth does not mean they should start having kids.

You seem oddly baffled by why sexual relations & marriage between teens & adults are disapproved of in the US.

Apparently, the cultural history of the US, the wealth of research that clearly shows that the psychological effects of sex on teen girls are far more complicated than you admit, that the age at which women in a society typically marry is intricately linked to so many factors, including personal issues like her overall educational attainment as well as larger factors like a country's development & GDP is not that important & should play no role in making laws or establishing cultural norms.

That the natural impulse towards protecting girls and believing that they are particularly sexually vulnerable & naive might influence parental disinterest in your suggestion that their teen daughters should be able to legally serve as sexual outlets for adult men is apparently incomprehensible to you.

You choose not to understand or acknowledge these points because at the end of the day, sexual access to teenage girls benefits you & is something you want. Most people take a this approach to what laws they support or disdain - does it help/hurt me?

Lawmakers, however, have to take a far more wide-ranging approach - overall societal effects if something like teenage marriage is engaged in by a substantial % of the population or how to protect the most people in a population that is perceived as particularly vulnerable while causing the least harm.

And in their view, the potential harm & consequences to teen girls outweighs the potential harm & consequences to older men who have to wait until the girls are a little older before having sex with them.

Laws like this, like those about drug use or voting, for obvious reasons, cannot & are not made based on an ideal citizen (e.g. a healthy, true-love parentally-sanctioned relationship involving a remarkably mature teen girl & honorable older man). I mention parental sanction because when a guy is prosecuted for statutory rape, the girl's parents/legal guardians are usually the ones pressing charges.

[Gannon]

I appreciate your comments, but in the end we have different premises. We appreciate reality in different ways. Thank you for your time.