I can point to good studies and government modelling too that find immigration reduces wages, it’s a pointless internet battle…
The key difference between all the research is in the subgroups of workers compared and a few issues trying to study it:
Immigrants choose where to go, often to booming places, which can mask wage effects.
Natives and firms adjust (people move, capital flows in, jobs get reorganised), which dilutes local comparisons.
National-level studies avoid that problem but depend on modelling assumptions, such as how substitutable workers are.
This prompts the debate of skilled migrants vs unskilled, which leads to looking at how wages reduce or stagnate for professionals when there are high rates of skilled immigration aaaand we’re back at square one
Today, the United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. Even though immigrants
assimilate faster in the United States compared to developed European nations, immigration policy has become a highly contentious issue in America. While much of the debate centers on cultural issues, the economic effects of immigration are clear: Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans’ wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for
natives and for the overall economy.
Key points
While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most
academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages.
The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce,
greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic
productivity.
Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers
benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born
residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
It’s pretty disgusting you’d try to use this misleading appeal to authority, attempting to frame this as some reputable government finding when it’s only just a third party document mirrored by the congress website. Let’s dive into the obvious problems here.
Unknown author and funding: No named author, no disclosure, no sign of peer review.
Advocacy-linked sources: Key claims cite Cato, NFAP (Stuart Anderson) and the Partnership for a New American Economy. All are policy advocacy organisations.
It’s 9 pages with no original analysis beyond a couple of charts. Its conclusions depend on a handful of studies chosen by the author.
Old data: It’s a 2016 brief using 2009-2013 figures, so it misses the post-2020 immigration surge, post-pandemic labour markets and recent fiscal studies.
“Economists generally agree”: The only support is a 2013 IGM expert poll in a footnote.
Contested findings downplayed: Borjas’s estimate that 1980-2000 immigration cut wages about 3% is footnoted, then treated as an outlier.
Static framing: It doesn’t model scenarios, uncertainty ranges or sensitivity to assumptions.
The brief’s chain of reasoning is that immigration adds labour supply, wages dip, firms invest more, capital per worker recovers, and so wages recover. Except no evidence is presented for wage recovery. The theory needs capital per worker to hold. Wages also depend on labour’s share of income, which the brief admits has fallen since 2000. It dismisses that in a footnote as “technology and globalisation”
The two studies in Table 2 are simulations that build in the investment response and imperfect substitutability between immigrants and natives. The roughly +0.5 percentage point result for native wages depends partly on those assumptions, so it is not an observed wage change.
I could go on but the fact you’re trying to claim this very misleading report produced by lobbyists is reputable is insane. If anything, it strongly supports immigration causing immediate dip in wages. They have a theoretical simulated scenario to suggest wages might improve afterwards.
It is a peer reviewed non-partisan Congressional report about the country with the most immigrants in the world. Clearly you are much smarter than these experts.
Edit: Just a few more sources all saying the exact same thing. Feel free to do your arm chair AI dissection.
What about when they’re temporary, and go back home with their money?
What about when they come from a country so desperate and poor that they’re terrified of being forced to go back, and so they’ll do anything for work, even work half of minimum wage? You don’t think that might drive down wages?
What if they’re so terrified that they won’t form a union? Shouldn’t the IWW care about that?
What if this is all a trick by the capitalists themselves?
What about when they’re temporary, and go back home with their money?
That’s not an “immigrant”, that’s a seasonal migrant worker. Typically not legally capable of competing with legal citizens. They’re picking fruit, not edging you out of a Target cashier job, much less anything else. If they’re actual immigrants, and not seasonal workers, this is home.
What about when they come from a country so desperate and poor that they’re terrified of being forced to go back, and so they’ll do anything for work, even work half of minimum wage? You don’t think that might drive down wages?
If they live here, they live here. If they’re legally able to apply to jobs that pay above minimum wage, why would they be forced to go back? Are there any employment-dependent visas for minimum wage work? I’m certainly not aware of any.
What if they’re so terrified that they won’t form a union? Shouldn’t the IWW care about that?
What?
What if this is all a trick by the capitalists themselves?
Immigration? I mean yeah, they’re the driving force behind seasonal migrant workers. But actual immigrants?
That’s just deflecting from the fact that more people job seeking means lower wages, without even considering that people moving from poorer countries will typically work for less
How is that a deflection? It’s a direct refutation of your central point.
When a person moves in and takes a job at a grocery store, they aren’t just a customer for the grocery store. They are a customer for clothing stores, movie theaters, appliance stores, barbers, restaurants, mechanics, etc.
To simplify things to “basic supply and demand” levels: if you have 20 businesses in town which each staff at a 1:20 ratio, 20 migrants moving into town and shopping at those businesses, increases supply exactly in proportion to the increase in demand.
It’s reductive, but then “basic supply and demand” is itself extremely reductive. It’s a drastic simplification to illustrate basic concepts, like frictionless surfaces and spherical cows in Physics 101. “Basic supply and demand” is not how economies actually work, it’s a simplified model for Econ 101.
But then you’re being reductive, because that person could very well just be taking their money back home with them. Because as you say, it’s not just as simple as that. The person above you has a point.
Yes, I explicitly said so. Almost as reductive as “basic supply and demand” arguments. Almost.
Because as you say, it’s not just as simple as that. The person above you has a point.
On the contrary, that only proves my overarching point that actual economics is more complicated than “basic supply and demand”.
What you’re describing is relatively common among seasonal workers, but that’s an entirely different can of worms than normal migrants. Seasonal migrant workers are not competing against locals for jobs, because locals aren’t applying for those jobs, which is why there’s a market for seasonal migrant workers in the first place.
If they’re taking their money back home with them, they aren’t really the immigrants we’re talking about. Immigrants are people who have made this their new home.
And again, those people are doing jobs locals don’t want. They aren’t seeking citizenship and applying for normal jobs, they’re moving here for a season to pick fruit under the table. Locals are not competing for those jobs.
But again, it’s a complicated system. “Basic supply and demand” is basically irrelevant outside the classroom. Sure it’s one of many factors, but it’s not the ultimate truth in a rational understanding of actual economics. It’s a spherical cow.
It is most certainly in the business’s interest to pay the absolute minimum possible
But is this not basic supply and demand? More people wanting a job pushes the price down, migrants are more people
Assuming there can only be a fixed number of jobs, you’re right. However, that’s like solving for spherical chickens in vacuum.
To see why immigration is not a factor, see https://lemmy.world/post/53479187/26477182
I can point to good studies and government modelling too that find immigration reduces wages, it’s a pointless internet battle…
The key difference between all the research is in the subgroups of workers compared and a few issues trying to study it:
Immigrants choose where to go, often to booming places, which can mask wage effects.
Natives and firms adjust (people move, capital flows in, jobs get reorganised), which dilutes local comparisons.
National-level studies avoid that problem but depend on modelling assumptions, such as how substitutable workers are.
This prompts the debate of skilled migrants vs unskilled, which leads to looking at how wages reduce or stagnate for professionals when there are high rates of skilled immigration aaaand we’re back at square one
You can point out a couple of flawed studies against a mountain of contrary evidence.
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf
Intro
Today, the United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. Even though immigrants assimilate faster in the United States compared to developed European nations, immigration policy has become a highly contentious issue in America. While much of the debate centers on cultural issues, the economic effects of immigration are clear: Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans’ wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy.
Key points
While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages.
The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.
Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
It’s pretty disgusting you’d try to use this misleading appeal to authority, attempting to frame this as some reputable government finding when it’s only just a third party document mirrored by the congress website. Let’s dive into the obvious problems here.
Unknown author and funding: No named author, no disclosure, no sign of peer review.
Advocacy-linked sources: Key claims cite Cato, NFAP (Stuart Anderson) and the Partnership for a New American Economy. All are policy advocacy organisations.
It’s 9 pages with no original analysis beyond a couple of charts. Its conclusions depend on a handful of studies chosen by the author.
Old data: It’s a 2016 brief using 2009-2013 figures, so it misses the post-2020 immigration surge, post-pandemic labour markets and recent fiscal studies.
“Economists generally agree”: The only support is a 2013 IGM expert poll in a footnote.
Contested findings downplayed: Borjas’s estimate that 1980-2000 immigration cut wages about 3% is footnoted, then treated as an outlier.
Static framing: It doesn’t model scenarios, uncertainty ranges or sensitivity to assumptions.
The brief’s chain of reasoning is that immigration adds labour supply, wages dip, firms invest more, capital per worker recovers, and so wages recover. Except no evidence is presented for wage recovery. The theory needs capital per worker to hold. Wages also depend on labour’s share of income, which the brief admits has fallen since 2000. It dismisses that in a footnote as “technology and globalisation”
The two studies in Table 2 are simulations that build in the investment response and imperfect substitutability between immigrants and natives. The roughly +0.5 percentage point result for native wages depends partly on those assumptions, so it is not an observed wage change.
I could go on but the fact you’re trying to claim this very misleading report produced by lobbyists is reputable is insane. If anything, it strongly supports immigration causing immediate dip in wages. They have a theoretical simulated scenario to suggest wages might improve afterwards.
It is a peer reviewed non-partisan Congressional report about the country with the most immigrants in the world. Clearly you are much smarter than these experts.
Edit: Just a few more sources all saying the exact same thing. Feel free to do your arm chair AI dissection.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/immigrants-do-not-take-americans-jobs-wages/
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20251217/118767/HHRG-119-JU01-20251217-SD001-U1.pdf
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-dont-lower-blue-collar-american-wages
https://immigrationlab.org/2017/08/31/fact-check-immigration-harm-american-workers/
https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8612123/
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/09/21/influential-report-finds-immigrants-dont-lower-wages-or-steal-jobs/
https://ucalgary.ca/news/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-wages-native-born-workers
With ALL key sources being policy advocates?
Stop pretending and go shovel your AI slop somewhere else.
More people isn’t just more supply, it’s also more demand. More people means more customers.
What about when they’re temporary, and go back home with their money?
What about when they come from a country so desperate and poor that they’re terrified of being forced to go back, and so they’ll do anything for work, even work half of minimum wage? You don’t think that might drive down wages?
What if they’re so terrified that they won’t form a union? Shouldn’t the IWW care about that?
What if this is all a trick by the capitalists themselves?
That’s not an “immigrant”, that’s a seasonal migrant worker. Typically not legally capable of competing with legal citizens. They’re picking fruit, not edging you out of a Target cashier job, much less anything else. If they’re actual immigrants, and not seasonal workers, this is home.
If they live here, they live here. If they’re legally able to apply to jobs that pay above minimum wage, why would they be forced to go back? Are there any employment-dependent visas for minimum wage work? I’m certainly not aware of any.
What?
Immigration? I mean yeah, they’re the driving force behind seasonal migrant workers. But actual immigrants?
There are very few businesses that increase staffing 1:1 proportionally with customers
And? I’m talking broadly about the economy, not one particular business.
That’s just deflecting from the fact that more people job seeking means lower wages, without even considering that people moving from poorer countries will typically work for less
How is that a deflection? It’s a direct refutation of your central point.
When a person moves in and takes a job at a grocery store, they aren’t just a customer for the grocery store. They are a customer for clothing stores, movie theaters, appliance stores, barbers, restaurants, mechanics, etc.
To simplify things to “basic supply and demand” levels: if you have 20 businesses in town which each staff at a 1:20 ratio, 20 migrants moving into town and shopping at those businesses, increases supply exactly in proportion to the increase in demand.
It’s reductive, but then “basic supply and demand” is itself extremely reductive. It’s a drastic simplification to illustrate basic concepts, like frictionless surfaces and spherical cows in Physics 101. “Basic supply and demand” is not how economies actually work, it’s a simplified model for Econ 101.
But then you’re being reductive, because that person could very well just be taking their money back home with them. Because as you say, it’s not just as simple as that. The person above you has a point.
Yes, I explicitly said so. Almost as reductive as “basic supply and demand” arguments. Almost.
On the contrary, that only proves my overarching point that actual economics is more complicated than “basic supply and demand”.
What you’re describing is relatively common among seasonal workers, but that’s an entirely different can of worms than normal migrants. Seasonal migrant workers are not competing against locals for jobs, because locals aren’t applying for those jobs, which is why there’s a market for seasonal migrant workers in the first place.
If they’re taking their money back home with them, they aren’t really the immigrants we’re talking about. Immigrants are people who have made this their new home.
And again, those people are doing jobs locals don’t want. They aren’t seeking citizenship and applying for normal jobs, they’re moving here for a season to pick fruit under the table. Locals are not competing for those jobs.
But again, it’s a complicated system. “Basic supply and demand” is basically irrelevant outside the classroom. Sure it’s one of many factors, but it’s not the ultimate truth in a rational understanding of actual economics. It’s a spherical cow.
People’s wellbeing must be the end goal, not a demand-driven commodity. That’s what I would identify as a key issue here.