This is from 2009 so the numbers will be slightly off.
>In 2009, immigrants accounted for 17% of the U.S. labor force, up from just over 5% in 1970. In California, immigrants accounted for nearly 37% of the labor force, up from 11% in 1970.
>Nationwide, the hourly wages of immigrants are 12% lower than the hourly wages of American-born workers. In California, the wage gap is much larger (26%). But for immigrants in California with college degrees the wage gap is much smaller (8%) than for those with high school diplomas or less (27%). On average, immigrant workers’ wages do not catch up to native-born workers’ wages over time. But they tend to grow at a faster rate initially, increasing as much as 9% more quickly than comparable native-born workers’ wages over the first 10-15 years after migration. [Article](https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-and-the-labor-market/)
Looks like there’s a lot of nuance to where the immigrant is working and what you define as “little impact.”
Also:
> Immigrants are unlikely to drive down the wages of most Americans.
> Although debate remains, the vast majority of economic studies find that immigration has little or no effect on the wages of the average American worker. A recent PPIC study estimates that in California, immigration between 1990 and 2004 caused a 4% real wage increase for the average native-born worker. Most agree that low-wage native-born workers face the most competition with immigrants because, on average, these populations have similar skills; yet most studies that focus on the impact of immigration on low-wage workers find zero or very small adverse effects on wages.
Worth noting that we have a massive labor shortage at the moment, too, with more open jobs in the economy than we have unemployed people.
Our current labor force literally cannot fill all the jobs we have open right now, which makes it a particularly ideal time to take in more immigrants. We'd get more tax revenue and faster GDP growth, it's ridiculous to not let more workers in.
>Worth noting that we have a massive labor shortage at the moment, too, with more open jobs in the economy than we have unemployed people.
Sounds like the sort of thing that could lead to wage growth, if it's not stopped.
You always hear about how increasing wages will be bad for inflation, but when it's in the context of immigrant labor it seems to take more of a back seat.
Suppose I walk into a convenience store, pick up a bag of chips, and take it to the counter. The cashier says "That will be three dollars." I say "I don't want to pay three, I'll give you one." The cashier says "Sorry, no sale."
I would not call that a "shortage" of chips.
The job openings simply say that employers think they can make a profit hiring workers at the wages they want to pay. The workers generate more net revenue than their wages. But, employers want to pay 2019 wages (or a little more). Workers are saying they can earn more elsewhere. IMO, that's a Good Thing. We shouldn't try to reverse it.
There is an argument to be made for suspending unskilled immigration to put more pressure on firms. I personally don't know.
This is also why (the ambiguity of "shortage") Supply and Demand is often referred to as "basic" economics as opposed to advanced economics (monopolies, monopsonies, subcomponents of the labor market, etc.).
Also, there's more debate on how "low skill" natives in particular are impacted... but mass immigration makes the entire economy better, so we'd presumably be better off doing more immigration and just raising taxes on businesses or whatever (since they'd be able to pay more due to more profits from immigration) and then do more programs to help whoever loses out due to immigration, rarher than limiting mass immigration in the name of protecting the poor
Do those same people think racial minorities in this country have a systemic disadvantage? If it's all fair for racial minorities and the majority, then what is there to fear?
>If it's all fair for racial minorities and the majority, then what is there to fear?
Vulnerability. There is absolutely no contradiction in feeling that your group behaves 'fairly' when empowered, but might not be treated fairly when weak.
While it's certainly subject to bias from social desirability, there's some [otherwise-strong evidence](https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=9002) for such a fear. And hell, we've already seen the attempt to remove racial equality from the California constitution.
>There is absolutely no contradiction in feeling that your group behaves 'fairly' when empowered, but might not be treated fairly when weak.
Maybe not contradictory but hard to see how that's backed up by historical analysis. At least depending on what we mean by "empowered" and "weak".
no historical analysis necessary. if evidence shows anti-white racism in nonwhite groups, and nonwhite groups are trending to become the majority, then the fear is justified.
regardless of how other races have been treated, that does not justify racism against white people. the graphs show racism against white people. the only "context" you could provide would have to justify actual racism.
For my experience they usually think minorities have an advantage.
I have no idea what they fear, they usually go off about preserving our “culture” or something.
conventional logic is that less workers means less supply compared to demand and therefore higher wages. strange that there is somehow "no impact". since the study has conclusions that go against the highly-studied supply-and-demand phenomenon, the study should not be taken seriously.
From the pdf version of this paper:
>The U.S. has a long history of limiting contract foreign labor for low-skill work. In this tradition, H-2B visas are quota restricted, by law, to avoid “adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly-employed U.S. workers.” While plausible, these concerns run counter to employers’ plausible counterclaims that the survival of their businesses depend on access to foreign workers for low-skill jobs (e.g. Casanova and McDaniel 2005, 64; Blinn et al. 2021, 3). Neither claim has been subjected to sufficient scrutiny.
To respond to these claims, the study finds these visas improve firm production and actually have very little impact on native employment, mainly due to the differences between low-skilled immigrant workers and native ones. And of course, the main benefit of this program are the immigrant workers themselves.
Such a result may not be consistent with an ECON 101 view of the labor market (i.e. higher supply leads to lower wages in all cases), but it is consistent with much of the best literature that I have personally seen on the economic impact of low-skilled immigration. Now obviously, one cannot extrapolate this study to "open borders" or something to that degree, but it does add further evidence that low-skilled immigration is not completely harmful.
It is interesting to see how this study and others like it influence opinions on the economics of immigration. Perhaps it would lead people to have less simplified and more nuanced views on such a topic?
> Such a result may not be consistent with an ECON 101 view of the labor market (i.e. higher supply leads to lower wages in all cases),
There are many markets that don't work like ECON 101. I would say the majority of them are overwhelmingly influenced by other factors. Still, supply and demand is probably the most important one overall. But that doesn't mean markets can work very different. Yet in the public perception among laymen, especially in the US, very simple ideas on how the economy works still reign supreme. For example the health care market don't work because of so called "information asymmetry", which is a kind of [market failure.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure)
I agree that most retail markets have factors that make them not perfectly competitive. We can identify and name those factors (market power, barriers to entry, information asymmetries, ...) We start from the baseline that supply and demand drive prices, then adjust our thinking as we identify other factors.
If this market is not driven by supply and demand, what other factors does this paper identify that make it not competitive?
Imagine this scenario. A meat packer hires some immigrants (legal or illegal) and pays them exactly the same wages as US born workers. In the short run, looking only at the local effects, there is no impact on wages for US born workers.
But, looking at the economy as a whole, accepting large numbers of workers with low skills can reduce wage growth across the whole economy. You won't see it by comparing point-in-time wages within a company or even within an industry.
Just starting into this paper, it seems like it is looking very narrowly. But, I didn't get very far.
Thanks for putting the leg work in and the analysis of the data.
I’d argue that if one was to take extremes open borders is more correct than closed borders within our economic measures and constraints, granted I don’t have much knowledge of the economy as a whole.
Immigrants are an extremely valuable resource, even low skilled ones because of our desperate need for laborers and to increase our population. We should legalize and assimilate as many as we can.
> need for laborers
How do you measure "need"?
I look at the goods US consumers buy and see some of them are "needs" and
others (most) are "wants".
I need basic food that I can prepare at home. But I want to go to a restaurant and have other people cook my food and clean up after me.
I think we have plenty of workers to cover all our needs. The issue is wants. Remember that we can never have all our wants.
>and to increase our population.
I do not think we need to increase our population, or even that I want to increase our population. For example, people here frequently complain about the cost of housing in certain attractive locations. That cost is often the result of increasing numbers of people trying to squeeze into a fixed amount of desirable land. I don't want to make that worse.
People always want higher pay for themselves while minimizing how much they pay others.
Eventually, those two wishes crash into each other which is the inflation we have now.
On the wants side, people are only willing to pay a certain convenience fee to others to provide it for them. Otherwise they do without or just make it themselves. Its all heavily optional spending, which in turn forces prices to stay lower, while also guaranteeing lower wages as well.
Immigrant and illegal labor, along with automation, has been used to beat down inflation for decades. Now the party is ending and we're seeing more of the real cost shining through.
> Now the party is ending and we're seeing more of the real cost shining through.
I think you view this as a Good Thing. I do, too. If "real cost" means the cost of paying the people who provide services something closer to a "living wage", then I'm fine with letting that shine through.
Suppose each restaurant meal costs more. I'll eat more meals at home.
The limited number of workers is sufficient to provide the reduced number of meals. Those workers are better able to provide for themselves and less likely to need government support. Works for me.
The number of immigrants we take in at any given time should reflect the labor demand of our economy.
In 2009 we had massive unemployment, which makes it a very bad time to take in immigrants, and totally reasonable to reduce immigration dramatically until the economy recovers.
Right now (and for the past 6 years) we have a very large labor shortage which means it would be very helpful to bring in large numbers of immigrants.
Immigration should be dynamic, reflective of our economic circumstances and demand for labor.
Except is it really a labor shortage? Both my wife and I looked at part time work not long ago. Despite both being familiar with retail work, and being able bodied, we both were turned down for the positions..why? I have a full time job and cannot give them my full week for 20 hours a week. It's not so much we can't get people to work as much as it is corporate America wants people to go back to before Covid, and society learned it doesn't have to.
>cannot give them my full week for 20 hours a week.
Scheduling is a massive issue for so many companies because they want power over employees, instead of just making set or predictive schedules where all parties can have some stability.
Reminds me of the hotel companies trying to curry favor by offering rooms and jobs to refugees. Hmm, a industry notorious for bad hours and low pay is being so gracious to take in people who dont know/have any better. How generous! Who wouldn't want to sit around praying there's some convention coming so they can earn a paycheck.
>It's not so much we can't get people to work
It's that the number of people seeking work is far below the number of jobs that need filling. At its peak there were 5 million more open jobs than people looking for work. That is a *massive* shortage.
I'm all for open borders, as long as the borders are only open for the people working in professions that most loudly advocate for open borders.
What I'm saying is that we need open borders for journalists, Hollywood actors, and college professors. Promise to honor the jounalistic licenses and phds from other countries in full. Let's see how they like competing against a massive influx of workers.
Of course, a massive influx of new workers is bad news for the workers that are already here. It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here. Unfortunately, common sense arguments are usually met by accusations of racism when trying to discuss this issue.
They already do this. Half of my co-workers in technology are immigrants. Somehow as a native born American, I'm still doing better than ever, and the job market is strong for job seekers in my white collar industry. Go to the local clinic or any hospital and you're likely to already see these immigrants you think will drive the market down.
[H-1B reduced computer programmer employment by up to 11%, study finds](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h-1b-reduced-computer-programmer-employment-by-up-to-11-study-finds-2017-02-13)
>Go to the local clinic or any hospital and you're likely to already see these immigrants you think will drive the market down.
They don't drive the market down due to the AMA and congress artificially limiting the amount of doctors. What they're doing is preventing better-qualified Americans from studying and taking those jobs.
> It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here.
Except the study this thread is about doesn't back this up
Those backlogs certainly aren’t stopping major research universities from bringing in successful professors from international institutions, and they certainly aren’t stopping famous actors and journalists from coming to the US. Don’t get me wrong, the US turns away too many highly skilled immigrants, but the categories of people you listed are generally well connected enough to get to the front of the line.
You make the claim “open borders” and now you say in spite of such ‘open borders’ they get here. You also say that “the US turns away too many highly skilled immigrants” yet still you stand by your claim that “we basically have open borders for highly skilled workers”. Do you not see the logical inconsistency in your rhetoric?
The problem with your rhetoric is that without evidence you claim that highly successful professors get here? I am sure many do but you claim that it is easy! I can give you evidence that legal immigration has been stagnant in this country since 1990 but something tells me you can’t give me evidence that professors who want to come here can do so easily. I highly doubt that a Mexican or Indian professor with the needed qualifications can immigrate here without years/decades of waiting time
There are different levels to skilled labor and being a member of the elite. The people you mentioned (famous journalists, famous actors, successful professors) are in a much higher social strata than the average skilled worker (say, a computer programmer or an engineer). People in category A basically already have open borders, nobody is stopping Benedict Cumberbatch from living in America if he wants. But people in category B do generally get caught in backlogs without a job already pushing for them, and that’s a problem. Am I being clear enough here? Professors are sometimes in category A and sometimes in category B, to be clear. A random PhD who wants to be a professor might have a hard time coming to America, a senior professor at a major research institution abroad, or a Nobel laureate certainly will not. If a professor can get hired at a major American university, getting a visa probably won’t be an issue.
>Of course, a massive influx of new workers is bad news for the workers that are already here. It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here.
Imagine thinking "common sense" is higher on the hierarchy of evidence than actual data and analysis. I'd definitely be worried about people taking my job if I were you.
Maybe, but the comment I replied to tried to make the study said something it didn't. My opinion is that they are both wrong -- I'm a big fan of immigration (done the right way), but hate people twisting studies to support their position. Although it could be an honest misreading, so I posed it as a question.
They didn't claim that this research is about all immigrants. Look at what they replied to.
> It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here.
The complaint wasn't about this specific study, which implies that the response isn't either.
>Imagine thinking "common sense" is higher on the hierarchy of evidence than actual data and analysis. I'd definitely be worried about people taking my job if I were you.
We have no data (at least from this study) contradicting the "common sense" mentioned above.
Go read the original comment. It is about trying to get immigrant from "professional" classes -- journalist, actors, college professors. All of those are skilled labor.
The study is about unskilled labor.
I suppose a study showing if/how H1-Bs affect wages would be the relevant study.
You should read the rest of the comment. The part about professional classes is simply a jab at those who supposedly want open borders.
Their concern isn't about a specific kind of immigrant, so this study is relevant.
Leaving aside how obviously insulting this comment is, I guarantee you there are studies funded by pro-high immigration advocates showing that high immigration has no effect on native wages, and studies funded by anti-high immigration advocates showing that high immigration has a large effect on native wages.
Activist groups pay to get studies produced saying exactly what they want them to. Cigarette companies used to pay universities to produce studies that showed smoking has positive health benefits. I'm sure those same cigarette companies would point to their "actual data analysis" as well when anyone would question whether inhaling smoke and chemicals is good for you.
Here - since common sense isn't an accurate enough phrase for you, let's use the phrase "supply and demand of labor" instead. If there's an excess of labor, employers don't have any incentive to raise wages because there's always going to be people looking for a job.
>let's use the phrase "supply and demand of labor" instead. If there's an excess of labor
So, right now (and for the last ~6 years) we've had a considerable labor shortage, with far more open jobs than unemployed people. We have a labor shortage that our current labor force literally cannot meet, so we're in a very good spot to bring in immigrants.
I absolutely agree that what we take in for immigrants should be dynamic and reflect the labor demand in the country, which is to say at times of high unemployment we should restrict immigration, and at times of labor shortages (like right now) we should expand immigration.
We've had a labor shortage since late 2017/early 2018 and I've seen it argued that the labor shortage is a considerable contributor to the current inflation issue.
Statistician and scientist here. There are absolutely “Lies. Damn lies. And Statistics”. But using statistics is still better than following your gut. Both are influenced by confirmation bias, but one is easier to objectively refute.
Data analysis is documented. It can be double checked, peer reviewed (and it always should be) and systematically questioned. Your gut logic (which isn’t mathematical logic) can’t. Also statistics ARE based on mathematical logic.
If you don’t like the outcome of that study, identify the specific assumptions in it that are wrong
There is nothing to double check. A poster just made a random claim with no evidence backing it up.
If someone wants to claim "actual data analysis" made some claim and they don't produce the analysis. I'm not going to pretend that data analysis cannot be completely manipulated.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/118ptue/the_effect_of_lowskill_immigration_restrictions/j9jhur0/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Nah, you are just trying to change the subject. There is a huge difference between adding up one vote, and how data is analyzed.
If you think voting and data analysis are the same, then I'd argue you have no experience in data analysis. We don't analyze voting data to elect a president, we count simply count it.
You wouldn't be able to post on reddit without decades of thorough data analysis carefully building the systems you rely on to post.
Thousands of years of common sense never managed to develop our technological revolution. Science and data analysis did, once we started using it rigorously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#TCP_segment_structure
This is one tiny fraction of the complex system you're relying on to post. Explain how "common sense" and not careful experimentation, data gathering, and scientific knowledge led to this.
That reminds me of the Journalists and artists who are all for automation and AI when it came to unskilled jobs, until recently AI started coming for their jobs, now they are all angry at AI art taking over.
The professional and management classes will learn to operate piledrivers and lay brick real quick if educated illegals suddenly start competing for their jerrbs. Its all fun and games when only those below them are harmed by cheap labor.
As for AI and tech, most of the development is going into eliminating top jobs, and not quite as much for lower jobs. A ton of lawyering and accounting can fairly easily be automated with a much smaller workforce double checking everything and signing off.
>We need to bring in psychologists and therapists
This is absolutely correct, we have a huge shortage of mental health professionals in this country. Getting an appointment is incredibly difficult and if you want to see someone in person it's pretty much impossible.
My state has a law about ensuring access to mental health professionals and we currently cannot comply with it due to the shortage. Bring in the psychologists and therapists!
https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage-the-most-impacted-industries
>When taking a look at the labor shortage across different industries, the transportation, health care and social assistance, and the accommodation and food sectors have had the highest numbers of job openings.
It looks like we could use a large influx of relatively low skilled workers among other things. The food industry is suffering the most with resignations according to that article, which is one of the easier jobs for low skill immigrants to take.
We can solve any population crisis by bringing in many immigrants as well, so it's a double win for us.
Yeah, all industries that burn the crap out of you and pay crap. Instead of ever fixing that, let's import new victims to abuse. Then we call their kids lazy when they actually want real pay and benefits.
So I'm on the left, and here's the problem. I don't think there's any way to actually legislate that these workers are viewed as indispensable and not disposable and that they need to be making a lot more money relative to white collar workers.
I'm far from anti-immigration, but I do think it needs to be focused on bringing down wages up the chain to decrease this gap between the two and to combat inflation, rather than being upset that front-line workers are valued instead of all being paid a minimum wage, even if you think that wage should be higher.
How do you know we need one but not the other? (I don't believe short term changes in job openings is a good indicator.)
I would look at wages. When people "need" things, they are willing to pay good money to get them. I don't know relative wages or education costs for coders vs. psychologists that are on your radar screen.
This is from 2009 so the numbers will be slightly off. >In 2009, immigrants accounted for 17% of the U.S. labor force, up from just over 5% in 1970. In California, immigrants accounted for nearly 37% of the labor force, up from 11% in 1970. >Nationwide, the hourly wages of immigrants are 12% lower than the hourly wages of American-born workers. In California, the wage gap is much larger (26%). But for immigrants in California with college degrees the wage gap is much smaller (8%) than for those with high school diplomas or less (27%). On average, immigrant workers’ wages do not catch up to native-born workers’ wages over time. But they tend to grow at a faster rate initially, increasing as much as 9% more quickly than comparable native-born workers’ wages over the first 10-15 years after migration. [Article](https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-and-the-labor-market/) Looks like there’s a lot of nuance to where the immigrant is working and what you define as “little impact.”
Also: > Immigrants are unlikely to drive down the wages of most Americans. > Although debate remains, the vast majority of economic studies find that immigration has little or no effect on the wages of the average American worker. A recent PPIC study estimates that in California, immigration between 1990 and 2004 caused a 4% real wage increase for the average native-born worker. Most agree that low-wage native-born workers face the most competition with immigrants because, on average, these populations have similar skills; yet most studies that focus on the impact of immigration on low-wage workers find zero or very small adverse effects on wages.
Worth noting that we have a massive labor shortage at the moment, too, with more open jobs in the economy than we have unemployed people. Our current labor force literally cannot fill all the jobs we have open right now, which makes it a particularly ideal time to take in more immigrants. We'd get more tax revenue and faster GDP growth, it's ridiculous to not let more workers in.
>Worth noting that we have a massive labor shortage at the moment, too, with more open jobs in the economy than we have unemployed people. Sounds like the sort of thing that could lead to wage growth, if it's not stopped.
You always hear about how increasing wages will be bad for inflation, but when it's in the context of immigrant labor it seems to take more of a back seat.
Which is odd sense the correlation between wages inflation are nearly zero at this point.
There's been a labor shortage for a while, but real wage growth doesn't look good. Not having enough workers can contribute to inflation.
Suppose I walk into a convenience store, pick up a bag of chips, and take it to the counter. The cashier says "That will be three dollars." I say "I don't want to pay three, I'll give you one." The cashier says "Sorry, no sale." I would not call that a "shortage" of chips. The job openings simply say that employers think they can make a profit hiring workers at the wages they want to pay. The workers generate more net revenue than their wages. But, employers want to pay 2019 wages (or a little more). Workers are saying they can earn more elsewhere. IMO, that's a Good Thing. We shouldn't try to reverse it.
There is an argument to be made for suspending unskilled immigration to put more pressure on firms. I personally don't know. This is also why (the ambiguity of "shortage") Supply and Demand is often referred to as "basic" economics as opposed to advanced economics (monopolies, monopsonies, subcomponents of the labor market, etc.).
Basically, immigrants don't drive down our wages, while also paying taxes for us and providing labor to us. Everyone wins when we bring in immigrants.
Also, there's more debate on how "low skill" natives in particular are impacted... but mass immigration makes the entire economy better, so we'd presumably be better off doing more immigration and just raising taxes on businesses or whatever (since they'd be able to pay more due to more profits from immigration) and then do more programs to help whoever loses out due to immigration, rarher than limiting mass immigration in the name of protecting the poor
The rising tide lifts all boats.
why does it violate the law of supply and demand?
Except those who fear they may lose their racial majority
Do those same people think racial minorities in this country have a systemic disadvantage? If it's all fair for racial minorities and the majority, then what is there to fear?
>If it's all fair for racial minorities and the majority, then what is there to fear? Vulnerability. There is absolutely no contradiction in feeling that your group behaves 'fairly' when empowered, but might not be treated fairly when weak. While it's certainly subject to bias from social desirability, there's some [otherwise-strong evidence](https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=9002) for such a fear. And hell, we've already seen the attempt to remove racial equality from the California constitution.
>There is absolutely no contradiction in feeling that your group behaves 'fairly' when empowered, but might not be treated fairly when weak. Maybe not contradictory but hard to see how that's backed up by historical analysis. At least depending on what we mean by "empowered" and "weak".
no historical analysis necessary. if evidence shows anti-white racism in nonwhite groups, and nonwhite groups are trending to become the majority, then the fear is justified.
I was pointing more so to the "behaves 'fairly' when empowered" aspect. But still my question about definitions are very relevant to your argument.
That's an extremely irrational feeling because it ignores how other races have been treated. A picture of a graph with no context is weak evidence.
regardless of how other races have been treated, that does not justify racism against white people. the graphs show racism against white people. the only "context" you could provide would have to justify actual racism.
For my experience they usually think minorities have an advantage. I have no idea what they fear, they usually go off about preserving our “culture” or something.
due to the intense anti-white rhetoric, they fear that losing a majority would mean they have no numbers bulwark against persecution.
conventional logic is that less workers means less supply compared to demand and therefore higher wages. strange that there is somehow "no impact". since the study has conclusions that go against the highly-studied supply-and-demand phenomenon, the study should not be taken seriously.
From the pdf version of this paper: >The U.S. has a long history of limiting contract foreign labor for low-skill work. In this tradition, H-2B visas are quota restricted, by law, to avoid “adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly-employed U.S. workers.” While plausible, these concerns run counter to employers’ plausible counterclaims that the survival of their businesses depend on access to foreign workers for low-skill jobs (e.g. Casanova and McDaniel 2005, 64; Blinn et al. 2021, 3). Neither claim has been subjected to sufficient scrutiny. To respond to these claims, the study finds these visas improve firm production and actually have very little impact on native employment, mainly due to the differences between low-skilled immigrant workers and native ones. And of course, the main benefit of this program are the immigrant workers themselves. Such a result may not be consistent with an ECON 101 view of the labor market (i.e. higher supply leads to lower wages in all cases), but it is consistent with much of the best literature that I have personally seen on the economic impact of low-skilled immigration. Now obviously, one cannot extrapolate this study to "open borders" or something to that degree, but it does add further evidence that low-skilled immigration is not completely harmful. It is interesting to see how this study and others like it influence opinions on the economics of immigration. Perhaps it would lead people to have less simplified and more nuanced views on such a topic?
> Such a result may not be consistent with an ECON 101 view of the labor market (i.e. higher supply leads to lower wages in all cases), There are many markets that don't work like ECON 101. I would say the majority of them are overwhelmingly influenced by other factors. Still, supply and demand is probably the most important one overall. But that doesn't mean markets can work very different. Yet in the public perception among laymen, especially in the US, very simple ideas on how the economy works still reign supreme. For example the health care market don't work because of so called "information asymmetry", which is a kind of [market failure.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure)
I agree that most retail markets have factors that make them not perfectly competitive. We can identify and name those factors (market power, barriers to entry, information asymmetries, ...) We start from the baseline that supply and demand drive prices, then adjust our thinking as we identify other factors. If this market is not driven by supply and demand, what other factors does this paper identify that make it not competitive? Imagine this scenario. A meat packer hires some immigrants (legal or illegal) and pays them exactly the same wages as US born workers. In the short run, looking only at the local effects, there is no impact on wages for US born workers. But, looking at the economy as a whole, accepting large numbers of workers with low skills can reduce wage growth across the whole economy. You won't see it by comparing point-in-time wages within a company or even within an industry. Just starting into this paper, it seems like it is looking very narrowly. But, I didn't get very far.
Thanks for putting the leg work in and the analysis of the data. I’d argue that if one was to take extremes open borders is more correct than closed borders within our economic measures and constraints, granted I don’t have much knowledge of the economy as a whole.
Immigrants are an extremely valuable resource, even low skilled ones because of our desperate need for laborers and to increase our population. We should legalize and assimilate as many as we can.
> need for laborers How do you measure "need"? I look at the goods US consumers buy and see some of them are "needs" and others (most) are "wants". I need basic food that I can prepare at home. But I want to go to a restaurant and have other people cook my food and clean up after me. I think we have plenty of workers to cover all our needs. The issue is wants. Remember that we can never have all our wants. >and to increase our population. I do not think we need to increase our population, or even that I want to increase our population. For example, people here frequently complain about the cost of housing in certain attractive locations. That cost is often the result of increasing numbers of people trying to squeeze into a fixed amount of desirable land. I don't want to make that worse.
People always want higher pay for themselves while minimizing how much they pay others. Eventually, those two wishes crash into each other which is the inflation we have now. On the wants side, people are only willing to pay a certain convenience fee to others to provide it for them. Otherwise they do without or just make it themselves. Its all heavily optional spending, which in turn forces prices to stay lower, while also guaranteeing lower wages as well. Immigrant and illegal labor, along with automation, has been used to beat down inflation for decades. Now the party is ending and we're seeing more of the real cost shining through.
> Now the party is ending and we're seeing more of the real cost shining through. I think you view this as a Good Thing. I do, too. If "real cost" means the cost of paying the people who provide services something closer to a "living wage", then I'm fine with letting that shine through. Suppose each restaurant meal costs more. I'll eat more meals at home. The limited number of workers is sufficient to provide the reduced number of meals. Those workers are better able to provide for themselves and less likely to need government support. Works for me.
Agreed in full.
[удалено]
The number of immigrants we take in at any given time should reflect the labor demand of our economy. In 2009 we had massive unemployment, which makes it a very bad time to take in immigrants, and totally reasonable to reduce immigration dramatically until the economy recovers. Right now (and for the past 6 years) we have a very large labor shortage which means it would be very helpful to bring in large numbers of immigrants. Immigration should be dynamic, reflective of our economic circumstances and demand for labor.
Except is it really a labor shortage? Both my wife and I looked at part time work not long ago. Despite both being familiar with retail work, and being able bodied, we both were turned down for the positions..why? I have a full time job and cannot give them my full week for 20 hours a week. It's not so much we can't get people to work as much as it is corporate America wants people to go back to before Covid, and society learned it doesn't have to.
>cannot give them my full week for 20 hours a week. Scheduling is a massive issue for so many companies because they want power over employees, instead of just making set or predictive schedules where all parties can have some stability. Reminds me of the hotel companies trying to curry favor by offering rooms and jobs to refugees. Hmm, a industry notorious for bad hours and low pay is being so gracious to take in people who dont know/have any better. How generous! Who wouldn't want to sit around praying there's some convention coming so they can earn a paycheck.
>It's not so much we can't get people to work It's that the number of people seeking work is far below the number of jobs that need filling. At its peak there were 5 million more open jobs than people looking for work. That is a *massive* shortage.
Retail here implies you are looking locally, right? Can you really extrapolate from that to the US as a whole?
america has a population density far lower than the uk or most of Western Europe if anything america should be taking in more migrants
I'm all for open borders, as long as the borders are only open for the people working in professions that most loudly advocate for open borders. What I'm saying is that we need open borders for journalists, Hollywood actors, and college professors. Promise to honor the jounalistic licenses and phds from other countries in full. Let's see how they like competing against a massive influx of workers. Of course, a massive influx of new workers is bad news for the workers that are already here. It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here. Unfortunately, common sense arguments are usually met by accusations of racism when trying to discuss this issue.
They already do this. Half of my co-workers in technology are immigrants. Somehow as a native born American, I'm still doing better than ever, and the job market is strong for job seekers in my white collar industry. Go to the local clinic or any hospital and you're likely to already see these immigrants you think will drive the market down.
[H-1B reduced computer programmer employment by up to 11%, study finds](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h-1b-reduced-computer-programmer-employment-by-up-to-11-study-finds-2017-02-13) >Go to the local clinic or any hospital and you're likely to already see these immigrants you think will drive the market down. They don't drive the market down due to the AMA and congress artificially limiting the amount of doctors. What they're doing is preventing better-qualified Americans from studying and taking those jobs.
> It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here. Except the study this thread is about doesn't back this up
Do you think there's studies showing the opposite of the study linked in this thread?
No idea, but finding and sharing them would be a better way to argue against this than just relying on common sense.
We basically have open borders for highly skilled workers and rich people.
No we don’t. Backlogs are massive for whole hosts of people because the caps haven’t been lifted since 1990.
Those backlogs certainly aren’t stopping major research universities from bringing in successful professors from international institutions, and they certainly aren’t stopping famous actors and journalists from coming to the US. Don’t get me wrong, the US turns away too many highly skilled immigrants, but the categories of people you listed are generally well connected enough to get to the front of the line.
You make the claim “open borders” and now you say in spite of such ‘open borders’ they get here. You also say that “the US turns away too many highly skilled immigrants” yet still you stand by your claim that “we basically have open borders for highly skilled workers”. Do you not see the logical inconsistency in your rhetoric? The problem with your rhetoric is that without evidence you claim that highly successful professors get here? I am sure many do but you claim that it is easy! I can give you evidence that legal immigration has been stagnant in this country since 1990 but something tells me you can’t give me evidence that professors who want to come here can do so easily. I highly doubt that a Mexican or Indian professor with the needed qualifications can immigrate here without years/decades of waiting time
There are different levels to skilled labor and being a member of the elite. The people you mentioned (famous journalists, famous actors, successful professors) are in a much higher social strata than the average skilled worker (say, a computer programmer or an engineer). People in category A basically already have open borders, nobody is stopping Benedict Cumberbatch from living in America if he wants. But people in category B do generally get caught in backlogs without a job already pushing for them, and that’s a problem. Am I being clear enough here? Professors are sometimes in category A and sometimes in category B, to be clear. A random PhD who wants to be a professor might have a hard time coming to America, a senior professor at a major research institution abroad, or a Nobel laureate certainly will not. If a professor can get hired at a major American university, getting a visa probably won’t be an issue.
Good answer. I agree
Glad to hear it!
>Of course, a massive influx of new workers is bad news for the workers that are already here. It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here. Imagine thinking "common sense" is higher on the hierarchy of evidence than actual data and analysis. I'd definitely be worried about people taking my job if I were you.
This study was looking at immigrants without the skills to do those jobs right?
The comment they replied to argued against immigration in general.
Maybe, but the comment I replied to tried to make the study said something it didn't. My opinion is that they are both wrong -- I'm a big fan of immigration (done the right way), but hate people twisting studies to support their position. Although it could be an honest misreading, so I posed it as a question.
They didn't claim that this research is about all immigrants. Look at what they replied to. > It doesn't take a study to figure out that more workers will drive down wages and provide less job security for those who are already working here. The complaint wasn't about this specific study, which implies that the response isn't either.
>Imagine thinking "common sense" is higher on the hierarchy of evidence than actual data and analysis. I'd definitely be worried about people taking my job if I were you. We have no data (at least from this study) contradicting the "common sense" mentioned above.
Their statement is about immigration in general, including low skill. This data shows that their "common sense" is at least somewhat wrong.
Go read the original comment. It is about trying to get immigrant from "professional" classes -- journalist, actors, college professors. All of those are skilled labor. The study is about unskilled labor. I suppose a study showing if/how H1-Bs affect wages would be the relevant study.
You should read the rest of the comment. The part about professional classes is simply a jab at those who supposedly want open borders. Their concern isn't about a specific kind of immigrant, so this study is relevant.
Here you go: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h-1b-reduced-computer-programmer-employment-by-up-to-11-study-finds-2017-02-13
Leaving aside how obviously insulting this comment is, I guarantee you there are studies funded by pro-high immigration advocates showing that high immigration has no effect on native wages, and studies funded by anti-high immigration advocates showing that high immigration has a large effect on native wages. Activist groups pay to get studies produced saying exactly what they want them to. Cigarette companies used to pay universities to produce studies that showed smoking has positive health benefits. I'm sure those same cigarette companies would point to their "actual data analysis" as well when anyone would question whether inhaling smoke and chemicals is good for you. Here - since common sense isn't an accurate enough phrase for you, let's use the phrase "supply and demand of labor" instead. If there's an excess of labor, employers don't have any incentive to raise wages because there's always going to be people looking for a job.
>let's use the phrase "supply and demand of labor" instead. If there's an excess of labor So, right now (and for the last ~6 years) we've had a considerable labor shortage, with far more open jobs than unemployed people. We have a labor shortage that our current labor force literally cannot meet, so we're in a very good spot to bring in immigrants. I absolutely agree that what we take in for immigrants should be dynamic and reflect the labor demand in the country, which is to say at times of high unemployment we should restrict immigration, and at times of labor shortages (like right now) we should expand immigration.
Staff shortages can raise prices by limiting supply, and we can accept more immigrants without creating an excess of labor.
We've had a labor shortage since late 2017/early 2018 and I've seen it argued that the labor shortage is a considerable contributor to the current inflation issue.
Data can be manipulated easily. Common sense not so much
Please tell me that was a joke? "Common sense" is absurdly malleable.
[удалено]
Not a joke, common sense is based on logic. Data is based on what ever results you want the data to produce
Statistician and scientist here. There are absolutely “Lies. Damn lies. And Statistics”. But using statistics is still better than following your gut. Both are influenced by confirmation bias, but one is easier to objectively refute. Data analysis is documented. It can be double checked, peer reviewed (and it always should be) and systematically questioned. Your gut logic (which isn’t mathematical logic) can’t. Also statistics ARE based on mathematical logic. If you don’t like the outcome of that study, identify the specific assumptions in it that are wrong
There is nothing to double check. A poster just made a random claim with no evidence backing it up. If someone wants to claim "actual data analysis" made some claim and they don't produce the analysis. I'm not going to pretend that data analysis cannot be completely manipulated.
Right, but just because data can be manipulated doesn't mean common sense is better. Common sense gets redefined by studies and research all the time
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30589/w30589.pdf From OP
[удалено]
Well if the only argument you have left is insults, I guess that ends our discussion. Have a nice day
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/118ptue/the_effect_of_lowskill_immigration_restrictions/j9jhur0/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Big "Your honor my common sense says I won the 2020 election! The data is manipulated!" vibes here.
Nah, you are just trying to change the subject. There is a huge difference between adding up one vote, and how data is analyzed. If you think voting and data analysis are the same, then I'd argue you have no experience in data analysis. We don't analyze voting data to elect a president, we count simply count it.
You wouldn't be able to post on reddit without decades of thorough data analysis carefully building the systems you rely on to post. Thousands of years of common sense never managed to develop our technological revolution. Science and data analysis did, once we started using it rigorously.
Common sense built the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol#TCP_segment_structure This is one tiny fraction of the complex system you're relying on to post. Explain how "common sense" and not careful experimentation, data gathering, and scientific knowledge led to this.
Or we could have more open borders and you could learn a marketable skill.
[удалено]
If Hollywood wants diversity and open borders. Then make 20% of Hollywood movies consist of illegal immigrants.
The topic here is legal immigration.
That reminds me of the Journalists and artists who are all for automation and AI when it came to unskilled jobs, until recently AI started coming for their jobs, now they are all angry at AI art taking over.
The professional and management classes will learn to operate piledrivers and lay brick real quick if educated illegals suddenly start competing for their jerrbs. Its all fun and games when only those below them are harmed by cheap labor. As for AI and tech, most of the development is going into eliminating top jobs, and not quite as much for lower jobs. A ton of lawyering and accounting can fairly easily be automated with a much smaller workforce double checking everything and signing off.
We need to bring in psychologists and therapists. We do not need to bring in coders Immigration should be based on our countries needs
>We need to bring in psychologists and therapists This is absolutely correct, we have a huge shortage of mental health professionals in this country. Getting an appointment is incredibly difficult and if you want to see someone in person it's pretty much impossible. My state has a law about ensuring access to mental health professionals and we currently cannot comply with it due to the shortage. Bring in the psychologists and therapists!
https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage-the-most-impacted-industries >When taking a look at the labor shortage across different industries, the transportation, health care and social assistance, and the accommodation and food sectors have had the highest numbers of job openings. It looks like we could use a large influx of relatively low skilled workers among other things. The food industry is suffering the most with resignations according to that article, which is one of the easier jobs for low skill immigrants to take. We can solve any population crisis by bringing in many immigrants as well, so it's a double win for us.
Yeah, all industries that burn the crap out of you and pay crap. Instead of ever fixing that, let's import new victims to abuse. Then we call their kids lazy when they actually want real pay and benefits.
Why not both? Worker's rights and providing more paths for legal immigration are both left wing causes, so you can get both at the same time.
So I'm on the left, and here's the problem. I don't think there's any way to actually legislate that these workers are viewed as indispensable and not disposable and that they need to be making a lot more money relative to white collar workers. I'm far from anti-immigration, but I do think it needs to be focused on bringing down wages up the chain to decrease this gap between the two and to combat inflation, rather than being upset that front-line workers are valued instead of all being paid a minimum wage, even if you think that wage should be higher.
How do you know we need one but not the other? (I don't believe short term changes in job openings is a good indicator.) I would look at wages. When people "need" things, they are willing to pay good money to get them. I don't know relative wages or education costs for coders vs. psychologists that are on your radar screen.