[int_19h]

> An immigrant will capture a much smaller share of the value they generate, otherwise why use them, than a native born citizen.

Why not use them, if they're more qualified?

The only reason why employers can fleece immigrants in US today, is because immigrants are effectively "locked in" - e.g. if you're on H1-B, you can't change employers without going through a bunch of paperwork; and if you get fired, they just kick you out of the country. Which, obviously, means that you can't negotiate from the same position of strength as a native. But remove those, and why do you think an immigrant would demand to be paid any less? We're not stupid.

[zeth___]

>But remove those, and why do you think an immigrant would demand to be paid any less? We're not stupid.

Because you're poor. An Indian in India makes 1/20th the wage a US citizen makes in the US. If they get 1/15th you have just received a huge raise and are happy.

[int_19h]

You forget that if you live and work in US, your cost of living is also the same as any native. 1/15th would only be attractive to person in India at Indian prices.

Besides, why would someone take 1/15th, if they can have the whole thing? I mean, by a similar logic, you'd expect people in US readily undercut each other at 1/2th, 1/4th etc in a race to the bottom. But we don't.

[zeth___]

People in the US have to support a family at US living standards. Indians on the other hand either have their family in India or are used to living in conditions that Americans balk at, multiple people per room, no lawn, one car or less per family.

Listening to the dumps some of my co workers live in I can see why median hourly wages have not increased in the last 40 years.

This is political economy 101. One of Malthus's suggestions for reducing the mortality rate was getting exotic materials to become staples of life so food wouldn't be the limiting factor of population.