Comment by shimon
14 hours ago
It would make sense to expect some ramp up because immigration is a stronger electoral issue than it was previously, and because a second Trump administration will probably be more coordinated and effective in implementing its goals than the first one was. Given how laden with unintended consequences any change in immigration policy is, though, there are probably some limits on the rate of change that would be possible and politically prudent.
For example, without undocumented immigrants, milk would be a lot more expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/magazine/milk-industry-un...). The current election is showing us quite starkly how significant grocery staple prices are in shaping public perception of a nation's economic health.
> For example, without undocumented immigrants, milk would be a lot more expensive (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/magazine/milk-industry-un...). The current election is showing us quite starkly how significant grocery staple prices are in shaping public perception of a nation's economic health.
This strikes me as a bit tone deaf. These people are paid slave wages to do this work. They have unsafe housing conditions. They pay cartel fees to get across the border. Their "employers" are breaking the law. The government looks the other way. Personally, I'd be willing to pay more for milk (or any grocery product) if Americans were doing the jobs and getting paid fair wages with good benefits.
It gives me Kelly Osbourne on The View vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8INEYLFWwc
Are you saying American voters are tone deaf for prioritizing food availability over ethical sourcing of food?
I mean sure, but I don't think that judgement has any consequence unless anyone grabs a soapbox and starts chastising people for wanting cheaper food. I haven't seen any of the candidates do that yet.