Some more data about how immigrants don’t significantly inhibit wage growth.
While the native of Guelph, Ont., has written too many high-impact papers to mention here, economists often associate his name with two landmark, highly influential studies, which we all learn in graduate school.
The first, which examines the effect of minimum wages on unemployment, has received much attention in the wake of the Nobel announcement. So let’s focus on the second, in which Card combined a clever technique with data generated by a unique historical event to credibly answer how large-scale immigration from a poor country affects the wages of native-born citizens.
More data
https://cdhowe.org/publication/parisa-mahboubi-no-immigrants-arent-stealing-jobs/
Indeed, a successful immigration policy is not necessarily about increasing the working-age population, but rather ensuring that more people are able to participate in the work force to fill the vacant jobs without negatively affecting the outcomes of the existing work force.
Evidence shows not only that an influx of immigrants has limited or no adverse impact on wages, at least in the medium or long term, but an inflow of highly educated immigrants can reduce wage inequality since these immigrants tend to be competing with highly educated native-born individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada
In a 2007 study, economists Abdurrahman Aydemir and George Borjas found that a 10% increase in the supply of workers within a specific education–experience group may reduce that group’s wages by around 3–4%.[135] However, these results should not be interpreted as a universal 4% drop for all Canadian workers whenever immigration rises by 10%, since Aydemir and Borjas were examining group-specific wage impacts. Statistics Canada has likewise noted that overall wage effects of immigration in Canada tend to be relatively small, with more noticeable impacts confined to particular skill segments or regions.[136]
In part because of the credential issue, many immigrants are forced to find work below their education level and at lower wages. However, even for doing work of the same skill level, immigrants are much less well compensated than their native born counterparts. Immigration scholar Jeffrey Reitz calculated that in 2001 native Canadian employers were benefiting from, and immigrant employees were losing out on, between $2 and 3 billion per year due to this imbalance.[137] A study published by Statistics Canada reviewed data from 1991 to 2010 regarding the convergence of wages between immigrants and native-born Canadians. The study found that there was a convergence of relative earnings for immigrants. Immigrant men’s average annual wages were 86% of those of native-born men in 2010, up from 76% in 1991.[138]
There are a number of possible explanations for why newcomers earn less than native Canadians in the same jobs with the same skills. Lower hourly wages might be an indication that the labour productivity of immigrants is lower, and employers thus have reason to pay them less. New workers are also less familiar with the Canadian labour market and will thus not be able to maximize their salaries. Employers will also be less familiar with an immigrant’s background and thus less willing to offer the same salary as to a native.[139] Due to lower mobility, they do not access better-paying jobs, such as in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/economic-impact-immigration-cuts-1.7362448
“If it was not for the population growth that we had last year, the Canadian economy would have been in a recession at the end of 2023,” said Charles St-Arnaud, chief economist with credit union group Alberta Central.
With more people coming to Canada, more money is being spent overall, he said — even if each individual has been spending less as they feel the pressures of a more sluggish economy.
This one is about the US but same findings
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-immigrations-effect-us-wages-and-employment
Immigration is not costless. Short-run adjustment costs, local labour market frictions, and non-labour-market margins such as housing and public services remain legitimate concerns. However, our results show that the claim that immigrants depress wages and reduce employment opportunities for natives, especially less-skilled ones, is not supported by the empirical evidence on the impact of immigration over the last two decades. The complementarity between immigrants and natives, and the large inflow of college-educated immigrants, combined to produce positive wage effects for less-educated US-born workers. These suggest that cutting immigration further would not help low-income Americans; rather, it may hurt the economy as a whole, as well as the job and earnings prospects of that group.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-and-the-labor-market/
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.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/immigration/collins-immigration-myths
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/20/business/economy/immigration-economic-impact.html
Left-wing biased sites conflate “Immigrant policy” criticism with criticizing “Immigrants”. They intentionally try to re-frame the more moderate conservative position, with an explicitly discriminatory one.
The walrus can argue against fairly obvious data points all it wants. They can try and dress it up in it being “complicated because the factors involved are complex and hard to separate!”, paired with “its because of capitalism and not enough socialism!”, type shit if they want, the harder-left is their target demo anyhow.
But the plain simple observable fact for the majority of Canadians, is that when the government reversed course on its immigration policy, and capped/limited/reduced the influx of people, housing prices went down. They’ve continued going down since that policy was changed. That adjustment to policy, followed a brief period post COVID, where house prices again were skyrocketing, and, surprise surprise, we had massive influxes of immigrants – skyrocketing house prices and over-burdened social programs were the reasons why the liberals moved to clip immigration levels. And, again, it’s generally been working.
It’s like you come across a burning house. Moderates say “use water to put out the fire”. It works. Most people go “Yeah, water puts out fire”. Then the walrus/left wingers come along and say “Well, now, no, it’s actually really complicated, you people just don’t understand. Other factors like the wind, nearby foliage, the type of material that’s burning, the nearby ambient temperature and more play a roll in fires!”. Like, sure, whatever, but throwing water at it fixed the problem. If we all stood around analyzing all the different tiny factors that might play a role, that fire would still be burning – additional analysis doesn’t really add anything material, water worked. It’s divisive to say that people who want to use water for future fires are bigots.
Our population growth is nearly 100% determined by our immigration policy - locally born people barely suffice for replacing the deceased. Put slightly differently, population growth is what drives new demand for housing, and that population growth is determined by immigration policy. We have clear, recent, historical examples where changes to immigration policy have had a direct impact on house prices and social programs. It is valid and fair, to say that Canada’s approach to immigration has a huge impact on its housing market and social service availability.
Life is not black and white. Sure immigration policy can create issues, as does foreign ownership as investment/rental properties.
But we also have corporations unchecked, colluding, and gouging us on food and services while making record profits. Huge Profit is just theft from the lower levels basically.
We also have internal migration, which I’m also guilty of, because some communities are shit and another place has more to offer. So we have lots of land that body wants to live on. That could be changes with better planned and serviced communities.
You are silly fool for being manipulated into blaming immigrants by the rich for the price of housing, especially in a spatially massive and resource rich country like Canada.
It’s not the housing prices mass imigration restricts but wage increases. Vary clear distinction Iv noticed having worked construction and working in warehouses and that half of them are forigne labor, not to mention the straine it places of social services. I don’t have a problem with imagrents, I do have a problem with the amount of them.
Where is your proof immigration restricts wages? If it does who set up the incentives that way?
It’s simple supply and demand of available labor, there are plenty of studys on this
Show me the specific evidence, there are plenty of studies on everything, many of them are wrong.
https://cdhowe.org/publication/the-immigration-paradox-how-an-influx-of-newcomers-has-led-to-labour-shortages/
Is this enough?
Again regular level of immigration does benifit a given economy but not mass immigration of low level workers, a flood like that only takes jobs from youths looking to get their start and often in tail a lot of complication like, money being sent home, immagrent just being grateful for what they can get here over what they would at home, knowing their living situation is temperary and saveing as much as possible for as long as you can and not redistributing it back I to the econ, and these are all just the legal complication not including under the table work or illegal immigration.
Before it was fine but the last few years were awful for Canada in terms of the imagration levels, I’m glad they’ve been reduced down to what they were before.
Where is your evidence immigrants to Canada are mostly “low level”?
From your linked paper, it does not prove anything about wages and its conclusions are based on weak evidence which it admits in the details of the study.
Because your don’t get half a million experts a year flooding into a country. Your moving the goal posts and plugging your ears because what I have to say doesn’t fit your worldview, I’m not wasting my time talks to someone who doesn’t want to change their mind, I have better things to do with my life.
There’s a subset of left that will get worked up and pissed off at any criticism of our immigration policies. They also assume it’s automatically racist to not want massive numbers coming in.
Even if you mention exploitation by diploma mills and girls being forced into prostitution, after being stuck in a situation where going back home is not an option, they start frothing.
There’s no room for a discussion in their world.
Yes, they’re tribalist, just as bad as MAGAts in my mind, just under a different flag. Nuance is anathima to them even when evidence is stacking and becoming obvious.
Who blamed immigrants? I blamed Canada’s immigration policy / approach to immigration. Because that’s clear in the data. Caps go on to immigration, costs come down. “NO NO! THATS NOT IT!!! ITS THE RICH!!!”
Which one of us is the bigot? The one highlighting objective data points and policies, or the one blaming an amorphous class of people, ‘the rich’?
Then prove it, and even if you can the reason is still the rich set it up that way artificially to create conflict between the poor and immigrants to distract from passing laws to control the rich…
Yes yes, continue blaming a vague group of people without evidence – the same thing right-wing nutters get accused of doing. Who is this shadowy “rich” you’re talking about? Regular middle class home owners, who’s homes increased in value over the decades they lived there, due to the increase in demand from immigration policy-fueled population growth? Those the villains? They’re already dying off, as Canada’s local born population is shrinking (outside of FN, who are the only locally born demographic that’s growing). Locally born people have been so fucked by our government for decades, they’re just quietly going extinct – Canada’s where family trees go to whither and die. Maybe that should be what the government focuses on, improving the quality of life and outcomes for local Canadians, rather than covering the genocide of locals via a constant influx of immigration to shore up the population numbers / suppress local wages.
Anyhow, I doubt you really want proof, or that you’d accept facts – you’d rather paint imaginary pictures of a “rich” cabal. You’re seemingly entrenched in your opinion and unwilling to look outside your bubble. There was plenty of media coverage of increased wait times and skyrocketing house prices / lack of housing during the immigration surge post covid - the cbc 's reported on it consistently for the past decade or so. The Trudeau liberals, with Mark Miller, literally changed the immigration policy in response to these issues becoming completely unsustainable. Ever since, the housing prices/rent prices have been edging down. It was a change done when there were no other obvious changes made that would impact that market – Trump wasn’t in power, international relations were ‘normal’. The only thing changed, was immigration volumes. They didn’t add taxes, they didn’t increase building/construction or investment at the time. The result of that change was lowered house/rent prices.
So whatever man. I said what I said, and I’m fine with other readers coming to their own conclusion about it being right or wrong. You’re a lost cause, in your reply you ask for facts, and then already say you won’t believe facts because of your bias. Hopefully there are more moderate/sane lemmings around, who’ll appreciate a moderate opinion getting voiced.
For real this is a hilarious response.
Do you think I am talking about cryptids here or something?
No, I think you’re a prejudiced person that’s entrenched in a left-wing bias bubble.
You asked for facts, and in the same sentence declared that even if I produced facts to support my position, you wouldn’t believe it and you’d still fault the amorphous ‘rich’ group of people that you have a hate-on for.
Give me facts and stop telling me about your feelings.
Why would I, when you’ve already said you won’t believe facts?