Having lived in bumblefuck Alaska for a year, I can honestly say that they do in fact pay more, but it's also super expensive to live in rural Alaska.
Likely a bigger issue is that very few people want to live in a town of 3000 people or less that isn't connected to the interstate road system. Money can only do so much to fix that.
That is true but I think the salient observation here is that it's only realistic to pay so much for education. So either you can't have children in such a town, or you're forced to homeschool, or (I guess what's being suggested is) you import someone willing to work an undesirable job if it gets them into the country.
I think there's an important difference between importing labor to undercut qualified americans in a populated area versus importing labor to do a job that the vast majority of qualified americans will have no interest in at any reasonable pay rate.
I would be fully willing to live in a pressurized bubble for a month for saturation diving. Sounds cool and doable. Living for years in rural Alaska and being a teacher? Absolutely not.
That being said, there are not that many saturation divers, because being a month in a bubble is kind of least problem with it. The lifelong health impact is.
It precisely and explicitly demands that the government restrict supply of foreign labor, as that increases the fair market value of American wage earners. It increases the opportunities for young Americans to trade their labor for a start in life, to support their families, and to make our nation stronger. Importing foreign labor makes it more difficult to justify hiring Americans, and undermines the nation's long term success for short term gains. It is effectively an Anti-investment.
If the clearing rate is equal to the cost of an engineer at a tech firm in SF, the education budget for a small town in Alaska wouldn't afford it.
Your formulation isn't wrong, however it covers only one scenario. What happens when the locality cannot afford the cost to attract people to their region?
This is not even theoretical, its what happened to the rest of the world, as their best and brightest immigrated to America or Europe.
You could say "them's the breaks" and I would understand. However people vote for solutions, so how would you cover the worst case scenario?
This supposes and outcome where domestic wages are increased and investment is made. It supposes that americans are willing and capable of doing the labor at a price point that americans will accept.
It is also possible we will simply not teach these children (or build infrastructure, grow labor intensive crop, ect).
Having lived in bumblefuck Alaska for a year, I can honestly say that they do in fact pay more, but it's also super expensive to live in rural Alaska.
Likely a bigger issue is that very few people want to live in a town of 3000 people or less that isn't connected to the interstate road system. Money can only do so much to fix that.
Some people live in a pressurized bubble for a month for saturation diving. If the price is right you can get someone to do almost anything.
That is true but I think the salient observation here is that it's only realistic to pay so much for education. So either you can't have children in such a town, or you're forced to homeschool, or (I guess what's being suggested is) you import someone willing to work an undesirable job if it gets them into the country.
I think there's an important difference between importing labor to undercut qualified americans in a populated area versus importing labor to do a job that the vast majority of qualified americans will have no interest in at any reasonable pay rate.
23 replies →
It doesn't matter how much money you have if you can't spend it.
5 replies →
I would be fully willing to live in a pressurized bubble for a month for saturation diving. Sounds cool and doable. Living for years in rural Alaska and being a teacher? Absolutely not.
That being said, there are not that many saturation divers, because being a month in a bubble is kind of least problem with it. The lifelong health impact is.
1 reply →
Yes, there is supply and demand. However, that doesnt mean a government cant restrict supply.
It precisely and explicitly demands that the government restrict supply of foreign labor, as that increases the fair market value of American wage earners. It increases the opportunities for young Americans to trade their labor for a start in life, to support their families, and to make our nation stronger. Importing foreign labor makes it more difficult to justify hiring Americans, and undermines the nation's long term success for short term gains. It is effectively an Anti-investment.
If the clearing rate is equal to the cost of an engineer at a tech firm in SF, the education budget for a small town in Alaska wouldn't afford it.
Your formulation isn't wrong, however it covers only one scenario. What happens when the locality cannot afford the cost to attract people to their region?
This is not even theoretical, its what happened to the rest of the world, as their best and brightest immigrated to America or Europe.
You could say "them's the breaks" and I would understand. However people vote for solutions, so how would you cover the worst case scenario?
1 reply →
This supposes and outcome where domestic wages are increased and investment is made. It supposes that americans are willing and capable of doing the labor at a price point that americans will accept.
It is also possible we will simply not teach these children (or build infrastructure, grow labor intensive crop, ect).
1 reply →