The history and present of the au pair scam
/On this week’s episode of The Manifesto I had a long conversation with a reader who has a decade or so of experience legally bringing in au pairs from abroad to care for his children (who sound delightful, although thanks to the magic of editing software you don’t get to hear their cheerful babble in the background of the episode).
I’ll let the episode stand on its own with respect to the mechanics and economics of hiring au pairs, which we cover in great depth and detail, but throughout the episode I kept coming back to the same question: how is this legal?
After all, every day the newspapers are full of stories about shortages of foreign workers, leaving meat unpacked, fruit unpicked, and lawns unmown. But there’s one weird trick to bring in an unlimited number of workers to care for the children of our economic elite?
There sure is.
The origins of the scam
The year is 1986. Ronald Reagan has swept to re-election, Mike Ditka’s Chicago Bears have crushed the New England Patriots in Superbowl XX, and just a few years earlier women’s formal labor force participation edged past 50% for the first time (male labor force participation was 76% the same year). It would continue to soar until topping out above 60% in the final years of the Clinton boom.
Two-earner households provided desperately-needed labor to firms anxious to expand as interest rates fell from their Volcker highs (for the purposes of this story you have to understand that a 7% risk-free interest rate was considered low in 1986). Just a few years later, Blondie Bumstead would enter the workforce after 58 years as a homemaker.
Of course I’m being a bit droll, but the point of this frame story is to express a genuine change in material circumstances experienced by an increasing number of Americans. Adding a second wage-earner to the household made up in part for falling unionization rates and the end of the “family wage” earned by the (stereotypically) male “breadwinner.”
This tidy solution came with its own complications. As Baumol taught us, rising productivity and incomes in one area of the economy increases the wages that have to be paid in sectors with stagnant or falling productivity as long as workers are free to move between low-productivity and high-productivity sectors.
But what if, you ask, for some reason workers weren’t free to move between jobs or sectors?
Congratulations, you just invented the au pair scam. In 1986, the United States Information Agency approved the creation of a “cultural exchange” program to bring in an initial 1,000 childcare workers on non-immigrant J-1 visas. The initial program, with its tight cap on entrants and limited geographical scope, cost families $149 per week, of which $100 went to the au pair, which is both insultingly and truthfully referred to as “pocket money.”
I suggest considering these figures in 3 distinct ways:
Using the Department of Health and Human Services guideline that childcare is considered “affordable” when it costs less than 7% of household income (no one bothers to specify whether this is gross or after-tax income), $7,748 would be “affordable” to a family making $110,685 per year in 1986 (277,000 2021 dollars).
$5,200 in annual income is roughly 75% of the 1986 minimum wage of $3.35 per hour, calculated on a 40-hour, 52-week basis (au pairs are in fact expected to work slightly longer hours than this).
But both of these figures need to be adjusted by an essential consideration: au pairs receive room and board, which both increases the cost for host families, primarily by requiring them to own or rent slightly more “house” than they might otherwise (e.g. 3 bedrooms instead of 2), and decreases the out-of-pocket expenses of the au pairs.
Everyone involved knew exactly what they were doing
It’s difficult, living through an era of bipartisan political amateurism, to examine periods of American history when politicians knew what they were doing. If the au pair scam were invented today, you’d say it was just an unfortunate accident, some sloppy wording in a hastily-written statute that was passed through a special budget procedure in the middle of the night.
Not so, as these hilariously prescient quotes show.
Some experts said the plan was likely to cause controversy. ''This could be a terrific program for the students,'' said Eugene Goldstein, a Manhattan lawyer who takes many immigration cases. ''But it could sound like a highly imaginative subterfuge, in bringing someone to work as a baby sitter under an educational program.''
He added that it may be criticized as a way to import ''cheap labor under the guise of an educational exchange'' or be faulted by those ''who don't think it complies with the spirit or purpose of the exchange visit program.''
In June, the first au pairs arrived:
Yesterday, some of the au pairs met their host families. ''We vowed we'd never have an illegal au pair, even though it's so difficult to find child care in our area,'' said Susan Garthwaite of Stamford, Conn. She, her husband, Richard, and their children, Craig and Dina, were introduced to their au pair, Nicola Adams, 22, from Hampshire, England.
''You can't get Americans for $150 a week,'' said Betty Richardson, proprietor of Betty's Nannies, a Houston-based recruitment agency that places au pairs nationwide. ''If they took all the unauthorized nannies away we'd all come to a screeching halt.''
…
Many of the au pair agencies and parents are resentful over a special new program under which 3,100 foreign au pairs are legally brought to this country each year by a private company, the American Institute for Foreign Study, under a cultural exchange program sponsored by the United States Information Agency and the Experiment in International Living.
The au pair scam today
If you were paying attention, you might have noticed something jarring in the above quotes. The au pair J-1 visa was introduced in 1986 with a hard cap of 1,000 entrants, but by May of 1987, less than a year later, there were 3,100 being admitted “each year?”
With all the clues in hand, you already see where this is going: in 2019 (the fairest “pre-pandemic” comparison year), 21,551 au pairs were admitted on J-1 visas!
What’s remarkable is that if the working conditions of these au pairs has changed in the last 35 years, it’s only been for the worse. The $100 the first au pairs received weekly in 1986 is worth about $250 on a CPI-adjusted basis today, while au pairs today receive just $196 in 2021 dollars! This despite the increased share of women’s labor force participation and corresponding demand for childcare, and the galloping productivity gains of the intervening 1990’s.
The wealthy got their special pleading; now what?
If you’re thinking of commenting that I’m being too harsh on the au pair scam, and that it’s “all perfectly legal,” save your keystrokes. I know it’s perfectly legal; I’m the one who did the research.
The point is to invite you to consider the consequences when the economic elite are allowed to buy their way out of the constraints everyone else in society faces. Not enough childcare centers? Hire an in-home nanny. Not enough American nannies? Bring in a foreigner. Not enough visas? Create a special visa program just for in-home nannies. This is the logic of a class that simply considers itself removed from the obligation to participate in the shared obligations of society.
Of course it’s all perfectly legal. They wrote the laws. What about the rest of us?
