{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01971830985915493, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006572769953051643, 'mean_word_length': 5.161849710982659, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Manning

It is always gratifying to find a reader willing to read an edited book and offer a critique. Unfortunately, Mr. Manning's critique of Migrant Labor in Agriculture: An International Comparison (1985), addresses a strawman the collection of papers does not contain a "theory of agricultural development"; instead, it is an empirical survey of the contemporary organization of fruit and vegetable agriculture in industrial nations. The main theme is the dissatisfaction evident in many industrial nations with the operation of fruit and vegetable labor markets. It would have been easier to reply to Manning if he included more than one quote in his critique to demonstrate the various authors' assertions. Manning's quote concerns the shift from smaller family farms to larger and more specialized farms, a universal trend in industrial nations which Manning apparently dislikes but is nonetheless an empirical reality. The book itself is not referenced; suggesting that Manning did not have the benefit of the entire 226 page collection of papers.