3 ms·

So I've read multiple places that low-income immigrant labor does NOT reduce the demand for local workers, and results in a general increase in wages overall.

So I've read multiple places that low-income immigrant labor does NOT reduce the demand for local workers, and results in a general increase in wages overall. (which would mean that most countries immigration policies are based on inaccurate fears) I'm totally willing to believe this. But I don't understand it. Is it that some portion of low-income local workers are qualified for more skilled work but there isn't the demand? Something else? Can someone give me the simplified version of events that explains this?

LaMarseillaise 11y ago
The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy, allowing more people to be employed providing the goods that were purchased. This means it at least breaks even. Since it stands to reason that the individual immigrant will benefit from immigrating with a higher income, it is also stands to reason that this income being spent would be greater than if they had stayed where they were.
- ergothus 11y ago
  That's a net effect - more workers == more work getting done, but doesn't address the general fears of "taking OUR jobs" that I've seen debunked but never really understood. If I'm a minimum wage worker and you increase the pool of minimum wage workers - sure, more jobs will be filled, more money in the economy, but if _I_ can't get a job due to market saturation, my situation is worse regardless. Again, I'm FOR liberal immigration policies, in general, but I've been told the above fear doesn't play out (overall), and I don't understand why.
- tenpies 11y ago
  > The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy I think this statement vastly underestimates how much money is remitted back home by foreign workers - even low-income workers. In Canada, we lose about 24 billion USD every year this way [1]. --- [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-dollar-1.3404145 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-doll...

LaMarseillaise 11y ago

The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy, allowing more people to be employed providing the goods that were purchased. This means it at least breaks even. Since it stands to reason that the individual immigrant will benefit from immigrating with a higher income, it is also stands to reason that this income being spent would be greater than if they had stayed where they were.

ergothus 11y ago
That's a net effect - more workers == more work getting done, but doesn't address the general fears of "taking OUR jobs" that I've seen debunked but never really understood. If I'm a minimum wage worker and you increase the pool of minimum wage workers - sure, more jobs will be filled, more money in the economy, but if _I_ can't get a job due to market saturation, my situation is worse regardless. Again, I'm FOR liberal immigration policies, in general, but I've been told the above fear doesn't play out (overall), and I don't understand why.
tenpies 11y ago
> The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy I think this statement vastly underestimates how much money is remitted back home by foreign workers - even low-income workers. In Canada, we lose about 24 billion USD every year this way [1]. --- [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-dollar-1.3404145 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-doll...