undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrufus_foreman5mo ago0 comments

>> The highest level of economic growth (GDP), and total factor productivity growth, was between 1929 and 1973

That's also the time period that immigration to the US was at its lowest. The Immigration Act of 1924 strictly limited the number of immigrants allowed. That law was reversed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Only 5% of the population were immigrants by the 1970 census, the lowest in US history. It's close to 15% now, a level which hasn't been reached since around 1900.

Income inequality plummeted because immigrant labor wasn't allowed to enter the US to drive down the wages of US workers.

H1B labor drives down the wages of US workers. Illegal immigrant labor drives down the wages of US workers. If you care about income inequality, then maybe consider supporting enforcing the immigration laws, and maybe consider supporting ending the H1B and other programs that drive down the wages of US workers and increase income inequality.

0 comments

throw0101c5mo ago

> Has the surge in immigration since 1970 led to slower wage growth for native-born workers? Academic research does not provide much support for this claim. The evidence suggests that when immigration increases the supply of labor, firms increase investment to offset any reduction in capital per worker, thereby keeping average wages from falling over the long term. Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives’ wages. This might explain why competition from new immigrants has mostly affected earlier immigrants, who experienced significant reductions in wages from the surge in immigration. In contrast, studies find that immigration has actually raised average wages of native-born workers during the last few decades.

* https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-e...

rufus_foremanOP5mo ago

I have heard people claim that cracking down on immigration will increase labor costs for farmers in California who rely on immigrant labor to harvest their crops. That would be a contradiction of your study that you cite.

Can you find an example of the opposite? Can you find me a California farmer who is happy with the crackdown on immigration because now his labor costs will decrease? That does not exist, for reasons of reality.

Where is the corporate support for decreased immigration if it will lower corporations labor costs?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse