Parrenas Response

Having had a Filipina live-in domestic worker when I was younger, this article was especially interesting as now I can realize the context and implications of her work. Having said that, unless I did a poor job of reading, I feel like this article didn't really do very much. Sure, it expanded KH's model of racial-ethnic women working for a higher class of white women to an international scale, specifically using the experiences of Filipina women. But apart from the obvious, and concepts that were already brought up in previous works (mainly KH), there were no real new ideas. Domestic work is hard/demeaning, mothers separated from their children are sad, white women not doing their own work is the reason why Filipinas migrate...this is not very ground-breaking.
Aside from that, though, Parrenas emphasizes that Filipinas doing domestic work abroad make more money than professionals at home. I certainly don't dispute that, but I do wonder exactly what percent of migrated domestic workers are professionals. Parrenas does say that 23 out of 46 women she interviewed in Rome had college degrees, and 11 out of 26 women in Los Angeles did. However, this data cannot be extrapolated because her methods for interviewing were not random, therefore her interviewees do not represent an unbiased sample size.
Something that I thought Parrenas was going to come to in her article, but did not, is what are supposed to do about all of this? Is the imbalance of economies at fault for labor migration just as much as gender or racial inequality? If so, what do we tackle? Should this issue be tackled at all?