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
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?
The reason you haven’t is because the data does not support your conclusions.
uh huh, sure, keep telling yourself that I guess.