[slothtrop]

Rate of immigration past a certain threshold has been shown to suppress wages.

"a migration-induced shift of 10% in the supply of labour is associated with a 3% to 4% movement of wages in the opposite direction"

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-001-x/89-001-x2007001...

If your supply is perpetually exceeding demand it sets that precedent. Neo-classical touters like to imagine an influx leading to new job creation: a) this is not necessarily true, b) if it is, it can be a slow process, c) if it is, it may not lead to a sufficient rate of job creation, d) companies are absorbing each other and wealth is concentrating at too high a rate. Growth will stagnate and we'll see a new era of "old money", just as it was before the world wars. And, we're dealing with the effects of automation to boot eroding jobs faster than new ones are replacing them. Just remember that what's good for the GDP is good for the rich, not necessarily workers.

[conanbatt]

Wages would go lower but goods will be higher. If an immigrant worker produces more than he consumes, the whole is richer, no way to cut that into an unfavorable calculation.

[lanfeust6]

We get more goods with fewer and fewer people in assembly and we're no better off for it as far as structural inequality is concerned. I would check the assumption that a cheap immigrant worker would increase productivity at all.

[conanbatt]

Again, if the immigrant produces more than he consumes, the whole is richer. The arguments against that calculation would be that you dont like who benefts on that, but the whole is better.

[lanfeust6]

You're referring to GDP increase. I already addressed this. The rest of us aren't seeing the benefits as we should. It's short-sighted.