4 ms·

> immigrants make up a large portion of nannies Those jobs would go to citizens if they weren't taken up by immigrants. Sure, the salary requirements would inc

by part3 8y ago

> immigrants make up a large portion of nannies Those jobs would go to citizens if they weren't taken up by immigrants. Sure, the salary requirements would increase, but isn't that literally the rallying cry of politics right now? To pay people more? So I have trouble squaring this: we want more low skilled immigrants, we don't want to build a wall or any deterrant actually but we need to cap and reduce high skilled immigration? Meanwhile, we need to lobby for more destructive policies that will reduce the flyover states voting power?

mdorazio 8y ago
That's highly debatable. Nannies only make sense if you pay your nanny significantly less than your own after-tax salary. If the price is too high, one parent just stops working because doing otherwise is foolish financially and because "I'm spending all my money to pay a stranger to raise my kids." So if immigrants were not available for the work and salaries rose accordingly, a significant number of parents would leave the workforce and lower overall productivity in the local economy. That's what I mean by supplementary labor. Your last comment is assuming complete lack of nuance in common opinions. You need to add some qualifiers to make it accurate. Something like this: We want more low skilled immigrants where they supplement rather than compete with local labor, ... we need to revise the program for highly-skilled immigration without necessarily reducing overall number of immigrants since it has been abused by multiple companies. I'm not sure what you're referring to on your last point. Flyover states and rural communities in general are rather overrepresented in politics today [1]. Most debate on this issue I'm aware of is focused on returning to parity in representation. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-app...

by part3 8y ago

mdorazio 8y ago

That's highly debatable. Nannies only make sense if you pay your nanny significantly less than your own after-tax salary. If the price is too high, one parent just stops working because doing otherwise is foolish financially and because "I'm spending all my money to pay a stranger to raise my kids." So if immigrants were not available for the work and salaries rose accordingly, a significant number of parents would leave the workforce and lower overall productivity in the local economy. That's what I mean by supplementary labor. Your last comment is assuming complete lack of nuance in common opinions. You need to add some qualifiers to make it accurate. Something like this: We want more low skilled immigrants where they supplement rather than compete with local labor, ... we need to revise the program for highly-skilled immigration without necessarily reducing overall number of immigrants since it has been abused by multiple companies. I'm not sure what you're referring to on your last point. Flyover states and rural communities in general are rather overrepresented in politics today [1]. Most debate on this issue I'm aware of is focused on returning to parity in representation. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-app...