latinometrics OP t1_j084wbv wrote
From our newsletter:
What has caused this production increase? In short: demand from China. Nowadays, China buys around 91% of all cherry exports from Chile. Chile's cherry harvest happens just before the Chinese new year; therefore, cherries have become a popular gift in China, culturally considered a symbol of prosperity. The fruit is marketed as something close to luxury and packed in elegant 5 kg boxes in the Chinese market.
Furthermore, two things have also facilitated such prosperity in the Chilean cherry industry: strong government support and a recent influx of labor. In 2005, the government established a free trade agreement with China (now its largest export partner, ahead of the US), eliminating trade barriers between the two countries. Wisely, they've also set rigorous production standards, ensuring exported cherries are of the highest quality.
On the other hand, cherry plantations require a large amount of field labor, which the country has found in the roughly 700K immigrants that arrived in Chile between 2015 and 2017. These immigrants, mainly from Haiti and Venezuela, have driven labor costs down in the industry and allowed it to keep growing quickly.
Although presented with pandemic-related challenges lately, the cherry industry is quickly becoming a crucial component of Chile's trade. It diversifies exports from a historical overreliance on copper, which accounts for roughly half of its exports.
Source: Our World in Data
Tools: Rawgraphs, Affinity Designer, Sheets
kuroikururo t1_j08xsh0 wrote
Fun fact, now is the cherry's season and you can hardly seen then on stores or in the market, everything goes abroad, we only se the rejected ugly fruit (still tasty and good).
EpsomHorse t1_j09tg6g wrote
> These immigrants, mainly from Haiti and Venezuela, have driven labor costs down...
Interesting. We always hear that those who oppose more immigration or want less of it do so because they're racists or xenophobes. Turns out they just don't want to be driven into poverty and/or unemployment.
Nmaka t1_j0boefw wrote
a) youre wrong in general
b) if you were right, you would still be wrong. it would be your boss' fault you got laid off, not the immigrants'
EpsomHorse t1_j0cok6b wrote
> a) youre wrong in general
The article says I'm right as rain. Do you happen to have some proof of your opinion, because "youre [sic] wrong" doesn't really cut it.
> b) if you were right, you would still be wrong. it would be your boss' fault you got laid off, not the immigrants'
I never said it was the fault of the immigrants. It's the fault of immigration. Not the same thing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments