Does Denmark have different early childcare arrangements than the other three countries?

Undisciplined

I'm sure this can be found. I have a book ARC on my desk definitely containing some such info

I wonder where the US compares.

And I wonder what this number was for the US during previous historical waves of migration

SimpleStacker

It is because western woman no longer raise enough children but instead prioritise careers that western nations 'need' immigrants to provide labour.

@denlillaapan is a Libertarian Icelandic welfare beneficiary who cannot find a woman to procreate with.

Solomonsatoshi

Its comparatively low rates of tax and social insurance contributions for low-paid workers plus a relatively flat state pension mean that people (immigrant or otherwise) who do small amounts of paid work or remain on low incomes contribute little to the exchequer but still benefit from robust state support

for immigration to be financially beneficial to the state, the UK needs to attract migrants with much higher pay and rates of employment than its peers, because low-wage or inactive families — whether native or immigrant — exert a much greater net fiscal cost in Britain than elsewhere

Arrivals from countries with lower incomes and education levels, or different economic norms, such as much lower rates of female employment, have been rising.

Compared to natives, females in all these countries work less/less attached to the labor market

Could be that Denmark assimilate/integrate foreigners better 

, frankly, its thriving, booming economy have just lifted all boats

"...suggesting that economic assimilation does not always happen organically."

Politics_And_Law

econ

Ah, what have we got here?

![](https://m.stacker.news/157851)

Britain not so cool:

> Its comparatively low rates of tax and social insurance contributions for low-paid workers plus a relatively flat state pension mean that people (immigrant or otherwise) who do small amounts of paid work or remain on low incomes contribute little to the exchequer but still benefit from robust state support

> for immigration to be financially beneficial to the state, the UK needs to attract migrants with much higher pay and rates of employment than its peers, because low-wage or inactive families — whether native or immigrant — exert a much greater net fiscal cost in Britain than elsewhere

...but Denmark real cool

![](https://m.stacker.news/157852)

![](https://m.stacker.news/157853)

Yea, oopsie

> Arrivals from countries with lower incomes and education levels, or different economic norms, such as much lower rates of female employment, have been rising.

Compared to natives, females in all these countries work less/less attached to the labor market

Could be that Denmark assimilate/integrate foreigners better *or*, frankly, its thriving, booming economy have just lifted all boats

## "...suggesting that economic assimilation does not always happen organically."

**3 summary reflections**

1. Immigration not fixed across time
2. Economic impact not static, results from policies as well as people
3. If immigration flows/types change, policies have to change too