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
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.
You are asserting incorrect things confidently with no evidence again! The numbers don’t support your feelings.
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.