"Labor" consists of human beings which bring a whole complex of externalities that capital does not. Not one policymaker (Not one) is effected by these externalities. And most of us UMC technocrats aren't either.
Labor is a unique resource, I would not treat it the same way I would treat capital or any other resource especially since it is tied closely to social structures.
Much of the incoming migrant workers are from places like Britain, or India. These people have excellent educations. It seems nuts that the U.S sets hard limits on such people entering the country.
I struggle to see how a country who outsource a significant part of their manufacturing to the far east could have too many knowledge workers.
My standard of living is doing just fine because I've adapted by improving and expanding my skillset and become one step ahead of outsourced and H-1B workers in my field.
Restricting foreign competition for jobs only foster complacency and increase the likelihood of my job being outsourced.
I would also mention Switzerland. I met plenty of people in Google's Zurich office who didn't get an American visa or were waiting for an American visa. For an engineer who has a job offer, getting a work permit in Switzerland is a few days process. I don't even remember the names of forms and visas involved, unlike "H-1B" or "L-1B" or "Adjustment Of Status" and the rest of the crap half of the engineers on the planet are still having nightmares about. And, at the risk of stating the obvious, Switzerland doesn't look exactly like a third world country. Way less so then, say, East Palo Alto (just a random example.)
> Canada and Australia have pretty open immigration policies and their standard of living is higher than in the US.
Which direction is net-migration?
I don't know the answer, but I trust that statistic more than any "causal"/"{wherever} is better because of the {factor number}" argument. Why? Because it's easy to find a factor that is better for any destination but feet tell the truth.
My parents were both immigrants who came to Canada on "skilled labour immigration" policies. We enjoy pay that's well above the Canadian average (read: we're not working for pennies), and within my family we have 2 masters degrees, 3 undergrads, and 1 soon-to-be PhD.
Overall I think we have contributed to raising the Canadian standard of living, instead of detracting from it, and I wish that the US has the foresight to implement these policies - as a startup-minded individual I'd rather be there than here.
How is this supported by history? When immigration was freer were living standards not rising in many countries and not rising in others, instead of averaging? It is not true that the only way to increase wealth is to starve others of resources so you can charge higher prices for goods or services. Scarcity is a form of poverty for society.