[moistgorilla]

This is not true. Unchecked immigration is always a negative for native workers. It can be accurately described as wealth redistribution from workers to the companies that employee them.

They cause $515 billion in losses for native workers and $565 billion gains for native businesses. Look at the chart on page 9

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...

[chiaro]

This is misrepresenting the data. The majority of economists and the relevant literature agree that allowing more freedom of immigration improves the welfare of American worker. This is ignoring the huge benefits to the immigrants themselves. To appeal to what I imagine HN's ideology is, the arguments are similar to those around making the market more free--when you prevent buyers and sellers from making transactions they otherwise would, you inhibit growth.

Only 9% of economists disagree with the statement: "The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year."

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...

0% of economists disagree with the statement: "The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of highly educated foreign workers were legally allowed to immigrate to the US each year."

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...

EDIT, since we're at the reply limit: Borjas is kind of heterodox, and without the chance now to do a better review of his literature I'm inclined to sided with the fairly overwhelming consensus. Picking two graphs that look similar isn't really a convincing argument, and 'redistribution' implies that this is a zero-sum change.

My position generally is that H-1B's (and whatever *-1B you suggest) would generally be good for the economy, though suffer from implementation issues and unnecessary restrictions.

[moistgorilla]

You tell me the data is misrepresented, please tell me how? The data in the charts are accurate and this is from an esteemed economist.

Actually read the article I linked and he discusses how the standard economics literature has completely misrepresented the impact of immigration on native workers.

>Finally, Peri and Yasenov look at workers aged 16-61, and this is a particularly weird data manipulation. Among adult workers, a high school dropout is someone who lacks a high school diploma. But that definition, when applied to teenagers, means that 16, 17, and 18-year-olds who are sophomores, juniors, or seniors in high school are classified as high school dropouts because they do not yet have that diploma. Let me emphasize: All teenagers, whose earnings consist mainly of what they get in part-time and summer jobs, are part of the low-skill group. There are so many high school students who are being lumped with the real high school dropouts that they fatally contaminate the analysis.

Also when people talk about the wealth inequality in the US and how wages have been stagnant for 30 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...

Look at the chart and notice how in the 1980s immigration begins to ramp up

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Notice that in 1979 wealth inequality skyrockets, which is logically consistent with the idea that immigration is wealth redistribution from displaced workers to their employers.

edit: look at the graph and compare the gap in wealth inequality. In 1995 when immigration is slown down wealth inequality stays constant. When immigration is ramped up, inequality grows like crazy.

edit: for whatever it's worth I made the connection between wealth inequality and immigration. so try not to use that to say my source is bad

[davidw]

Very few serious economists pin growing wealth inequality on immigration and only immigration. It's not just happening in the US but elsewhere as well. There are a variety of factors in play, and I think a lot of good economists will even admit that we do not know all the answers. Here are some of the other major ones:

* Technology, which will happen with or without immigration.

* Globalization, which will happen with or without immigration. Make it hard for people to immigrate, and companies will eventually open branches elsewhere.

And there may be specific problems with the Borjas 2015 paper in any case: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21801#fromrss

[flurben]

H-1B is explicitly a non-immigrant visa.

therefore any economic consensus about immigrants is not relevant to the H-1B.

This common misunderstanding is exactly what NFAP, the right-leaning think tank who wrote this study, is trying to exploit.