Migrant farmworkers are among the poorest and most disadvantaged groups in the agricultural society of the United States. In terms of income, housing, education and health they are more similar to the people of many developing countries than they are to most middle class Americans. Their ceaseless migration from Florida to Maine, from Texas to Minnesota, from California to the state of Washington went unnoticed. For the last fifteen years a variety of programs to alleviate many problems which beset farmworkers have been tried with various degrees of success in all parts of the country where agriculture demands their labor. Put one problem which has constantly hampered the design and operation of farmworker programs has been the lack of good empirical data. The recent trends and current patterns of the United States agricultural employment system are summarized as follows (USDA, 1982). Nearly 3 million people do hired farmwork sometime during the year. One-third of all U. S. farms employ hired labor. Most labor is hired by the largest farms. Less than 2 percent of all farms account for more than one-third of all labor expenditures. Hired labor use is concentrated primarily in certain regions. Migrants comprise only about 8 percent of the total hired farmwork force, and there only about half as many of them as a decade ago. Although their numbers are small, they face unique problems not encountered by persons commuting daily to seasonal agricultural jobs from established homes. Texas continues to be the home base for the lagest group of migrant farmworkers serving American agriculture. Each year, operators of farms depend upon these nameless and faceless people to perform the difficult tasks of agricultural work. In Texas, these farmworkers are mostly Mexican Americans (95%) who are poor, undereducated, ill-housed, poorly nourished, and do not have the skill to take advantage of other employment opportunities. According to the 1975 Migrant Population Survey, there are 85, 600 migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers in Texas fall in several categories which are not mutually exclusive. There are interstate and intrastate migrant farmworkers. Interstate migrants leave the state to work, while intrastate migrants work in different areas within the state. The counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy or Starr have a large population of farmworker labor force. These counties are called Lower Rio Grande Valley or simply Valley. Agriculture is important in the Valley; citrus fruit, cotton, vegetable, sorghum, etc. The Valley is a focal point of social, political, legal and economic conditions that have attracted national and even international attention. For a long time, there poured a stream of illegal Mexican migrants into this area. Some of these migrants moved on northward to other parts of Texas and other states. Most of them stayed for brief periods only and then recrossed the river to return their homes and families in Mexico. Illegal immigrants are called “Wetback.” At the present day a great number of the undocumented Mexican enter to Texas. It is possible to take the view that about 15 percent of these people are to be migrant farmworkers (by Dr. S. Weintraub). This note concludes that the situation of Texas and the agricultural characteristic of the United States are responsible of the migrants farmworkers.
Consumer behavior research stimulated by the development of cognitive behavioral approach has accumulated many empirical studies, having close relation to such established fields as spatial interaction studies and the central place theory. Recent trends in this field suggest that spatial behavior is influenced by spatial and temporal constraints and that preference structure behind the behavior is not intrinsic to individuals. In the light of this argument, the focus of the study is placed on the constraints-oriented spatial choice process. The purpose of the paper is to propose a store choice model which includes the concept of constraints and to test its validity. First, through the descriptive analysis in Section III, consumers' patronage patterns for various facilities (including grocery store, pharmacy, post office and bank) are examined. The data are gathered through the self-reporting about these facilities by housewives living in Nagoya City. In Section IV the proposed model is operationalised and applied to the grocery store choice. In this model, the choice process is divided into two components. One expresses the process of constructing individual's choice set. The other indicates the process of choosing the best alternative among the choice set. And the standard ellipse is used as the choice set to delineate the activity space where consumers usually keep contact. The form of the choice function is multiplicative. When we introduce the activity space ellipse, we could explain the observed behavior better than without employing the ellipse. At the next step, we subdivid the population into subgroups according to their socio-economic status. This subdivision is repeated in terms of the ownership of private vehicle and the housewife's working status. After the population is divided, the activity ellipses are changed respectively and then applied to the grocery choice model. This time the explanable results were not obtained. The defficiency of the activity ellipse may be due to the discrepancy between the actual travel mode used and the household's ownership reported, and also due to the shape of ellipse.