ryannathans

You can definitely still buy magnums

Is this an ad

Were you unable to structure your days? That's a bit rough

I'm struggling to think of any decent professional jobs beyond data entry that don't tick the boxes

Maybe not if your manager is a cunt but you can get that anywhere

Oh boy here we go again again

With ALL key sources being policy advocates?

It's pretty disgusting you'd try to use this misleading appeal to authority, attempting to frame this as some reputable government finding when it's only just a third party document mirrored by the congress website. Let's dive into the obvious problems here.

• Unknown author and funding: No named author, no disclosure, no sign of peer review.

• Advocacy-linked sources: Key claims cite Cato, NFAP (Stuart Anderson) and the Partnership for a New American Economy. All are policy advocacy organisations.

• It's 9 pages with no original analysis beyond a couple of charts. Its conclusions depend on a handful of studies chosen by the author.

• Old data: It's a 2016 brief using 2009-2013 figures, so it misses the post-2020 immigration surge, post-pandemic labour markets and recent fiscal studies.

• "Economists generally agree": The only support is a 2013 IGM expert poll in a footnote.

• Contested findings downplayed: Borjas's estimate that 1980-2000 immigration cut wages about 3% is footnoted, then treated as an outlier.

• Static framing: It doesn't model scenarios, uncertainty ranges or sensitivity to assumptions.

• The brief's chain of reasoning is that immigration adds labour supply, wages dip, firms invest more, capital per worker recovers, and so wages recover. Except no evidence is presented for wage recovery. The theory needs capital per worker to hold. Wages also depend on labour's share of income, which the brief admits has fallen since 2000. It dismisses that in a footnote as "technology and globalisation"

• The two studies in Table 2 are simulations that build in the investment response and imperfect substitutability between immigrants and natives. The roughly +0.5 percentage point result for native wages depends partly on those assumptions, so it is not an observed wage change.

I could go on but the fact you're trying to claim this very misleading report produced by lobbyists is reputable is insane. If anything, it strongly supports immigration causing immediate dip in wages. They have a theoretical simulated scenario to suggest wages might improve afterwards.

I can point to good studies and government modelling too that find immigration reduces wages, it's a pointless internet battle..

The key difference between all the research is in the subgroups of workers compared and a few issues trying to study it:

• Immigrants choose where to go, often to booming places, which can mask wage effects.

• Natives and firms adjust (people move, capital flows in, jobs get reorganised), which dilutes local comparisons.

• National-level studies avoid that problem but depend on modelling assumptions, such as how substitutable workers are.

This prompts the debate of skilled migrants vs unskilled, which leads to looking at how wages reduce or stagnate for professionals when there are high rates of skilled immigration aaaand we're back at square one

Isn't that what the English have done to Ireland?

That's just deflecting from the fact that more people job seeking means lower wages, without even considering that people moving from poorer countries will typically work for less

Surprised all North Koreans aren't sanctioned or monitored by default - if they're operating internationally it's a government approved/run operation?

There are very few businesses that increase staffing 1:1 proportionally with customers