3 ms·

> In the US the reason the middle class has had no wage growth is NOT because immigrants have hindered wage growth. The reason is simply because immigrants lowe

> In the US the reason the middle class has had no wage growth is NOT because immigrants have hindered wage growth. The reason is simply because immigrants lower the averages simply by existing. It is probably for both reasons, but certainly immigrants that have low education compete with Americans who have low education for jobs and they do drive down wage growth. This is not my opinion. It is economics. The issue is that proportion of both US and UK populations that are immigrants. Since 1970 in the US we have gone from 1 in 20 to 1 in 6 or 7 who are immigrants, most who are low-skilled. It would have been wiser and more fair to the American working class to have kept the proportion of 1 in 20.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
But the wages of Americans with American parents has risen, not fallen. Wages for Americans with American parents in the lowest quintile of income have risen the most - that seems like exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts! Since immigrants are consumers as well as producers, it's unclear that they drive down wages. Similarly it's unclear that Americans having children drives wages down. I'm not sure what "fair" means in your comment, or why you only consider "fair to the American working class" rather than "fair to humans". Could you clarify?
- davidf18 10y ago
  > But the wages of Americans with American parents has risen, not fallen. Wages for Americans with American parents in the lowest quintile of income have risen the most - that seems like exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts! Are you certain that this applies to Americans that don't have a college education? That didn't graduate from high school? Those who would suffer most economically from uneducated immigrants? And one must average in those who are unemployed (eg, 0 wages). Don't look at averages, look at distributions.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Are you certain that this applies to Americans that don't have a college education? No, I am not certain that Americans with American parents in the bottom 20% didn't get an education. Some of them probably did (about half the population has at least some college) and had their place at the bottom of the ladder filled by an immigrant. Don't look at averages, look at distributions. It helps if you actually follow the link provided and look at the exact figure being cited. Then you'd see it's a histogram of a distribution!
    - davidf18 10y ago
      One of the documents is 38 pages and the other is 20 pages. Were there are emotions such as immigration and especially illegal immigration, it is important to provide the data and answer the exact question which I could not see the proper distribution. “The facts support the application of Ricardo’s theory to immigration. Skilled immigrants lower the wages of skilled natives, and unskilled immigrants lower the wages of unskilled natives. … In contrast, in the United States, which takes in a far higher percentage of low-skilled immigrants than the U.K. does, it is unskilled wages that have stayed low: the income of unskilled workers has barely kept pace with inflation for the last forty years.” -- Tim Harford: The Undercover Economist (2nd ed) p. 30 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199926514/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199926514/ Financial Times columnist Harford has a BS & MS Economics Oxford The question is: For people whose parents were born in the US without a high school education and also without a college education, and including those who have no income because they can't get a job is there wage growth or a decrease? It is economists that state that immigrants who are uneducated displace those citizens who are working class.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        You may be right that the particular slice of people you single out has also had a decrease in wage growth. Do you have any evidence of this? Or are you simply assuming that all unknown facts support your position? In any case, the specific stats Harford cites are cross sectional. This means the averages include immigrants and fall victim to the exact same Simpson's Paradox issue that I discuss above. To show that immigrants have reduced anyone's wages, you need longitudinal data. And your question is also malformed, because you don't specify whether you are discussing the children (who may be educated) of uneducated American parents, or the uneducated children of American parents (who may or may not have been uneducated).

yummyfajitas 10y ago

But the wages of Americans with American parents has risen, not fallen. Wages for Americans with American parents in the lowest quintile of income have risen the most - that seems like exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts! Since immigrants are consumers as well as producers, it's unclear that they drive down wages. Similarly it's unclear that Americans having children drives wages down. I'm not sure what "fair" means in your comment, or why you only consider "fair to the American working class" rather than "fair to humans". Could you clarify?

davidf18 10y ago
> But the wages of Americans with American parents has risen, not fallen. Wages for Americans with American parents in the lowest quintile of income have risen the most - that seems like exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts! Are you certain that this applies to Americans that don't have a college education? That didn't graduate from high school? Those who would suffer most economically from uneducated immigrants? And one must average in those who are unemployed (eg, 0 wages). Don't look at averages, look at distributions.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Are you certain that this applies to Americans that don't have a college education? No, I am not certain that Americans with American parents in the bottom 20% didn't get an education. Some of them probably did (about half the population has at least some college) and had their place at the bottom of the ladder filled by an immigrant. Don't look at averages, look at distributions. It helps if you actually follow the link provided and look at the exact figure being cited. Then you'd see it's a histogram of a distribution!
  - davidf18 10y ago
    One of the documents is 38 pages and the other is 20 pages. Were there are emotions such as immigration and especially illegal immigration, it is important to provide the data and answer the exact question which I could not see the proper distribution. “The facts support the application of Ricardo’s theory to immigration. Skilled immigrants lower the wages of skilled natives, and unskilled immigrants lower the wages of unskilled natives. … In contrast, in the United States, which takes in a far higher percentage of low-skilled immigrants than the U.K. does, it is unskilled wages that have stayed low: the income of unskilled workers has barely kept pace with inflation for the last forty years.” -- Tim Harford: The Undercover Economist (2nd ed) p. 30 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199926514/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199926514/ Financial Times columnist Harford has a BS & MS Economics Oxford The question is: For people whose parents were born in the US without a high school education and also without a college education, and including those who have no income because they can't get a job is there wage growth or a decrease? It is economists that state that immigrants who are uneducated displace those citizens who are working class.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      You may be right that the particular slice of people you single out has also had a decrease in wage growth. Do you have any evidence of this? Or are you simply assuming that all unknown facts support your position? In any case, the specific stats Harford cites are cross sectional. This means the averages include immigrants and fall victim to the exact same Simpson's Paradox issue that I discuss above. To show that immigrants have reduced anyone's wages, you need longitudinal data. And your question is also malformed, because you don't specify whether you are discussing the children (who may be educated) of uneducated American parents, or the uneducated children of American parents (who may or may not have been uneducated).