all 3 comments

[–]FoxySDT 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Not according to this meta-analysis of 348 estimates on the impact of immigration on native wages in the United States and EU countries which found that a 1% increase in immigrants as part of the labor force was associated with a 0.119% reduction in native wages.

[–]Vegethu[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You haven't for why you think my citation is inaccurate. Can you actually confront my argument please?

On the topic of your study, are you aware that my comment is reffering to the US alone? Your study includes the US as well but even goes so far as to say that the results of immigration were different between the 2 countries. Also you have to aware that your study admits that much works remains to be done when assessing the impact of immigration on the labour force and was published in 2004 whereas my study a far more recent study.

[–]FoxySDT 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They do say the effect was larger in the EU but it wasn't much better in the US

"The results in columns (2) and (3) of Table 3 confirm that the effect sizes estimated by studies focussing on the US seem to be significantly closer to zero than the ones estimated by studies focussing on the EU."

We can pretend that the effect of immigration on wages is 0.00 instead of -0.119 but it is the same in the end. Immigration doesn't increase native wages.