[andyt]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070525/dq070525a-eng.htm

Quote:

A key finding of this study is that there was a sizable, statistically significant, and roughly comparable inverse relationship between immigrant-induced shifts in labour supply and wages in each of the three countries.

In each, a migration-induced shift of 10% in labour supply was associated with a 3% to 4% change in weekly earnings in the opposite direction.

The study says that in Canada, immigration has actually depressed higher wages but now lower ones, in the sense there are less low paid workers vs higher paid ones. But, when in BC we still had until recently had people working for $8 an hour or a bit more, I'm not sure I believe that.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I should read the study. I note however that these studies are usually highly stilted. For example since 2002 or so Canadian immigration has been highly tilted towards people with degrees, whereas other countries not so. In addition 69% of immigrants have been going to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. So really these are the study group. Finally wages normally inflate with the business cycle, our 17 year long expansion may be due to wage suppression by immigration. Immigration may be an alternative to stagflation, but no study will mention it.

Really 69% of immigrants have been going to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver so you really only need to see how these cities are doing to point the finger at immigration. Toronto has posted some monster dysfunctional numbers, child poverty in the 2006 census of 32%.

[andyt]

In BC we're told we have the highest rate of child poverty in the country. Vancouver itself may have a low poverty rate, since only the rich and very poor can afford to live there. The poor with children are all out in the suburbs.

[Bruce_the_vii]

andyt wrote:

In BC we're told we have the highest rate of child poverty in the country.

Gawwd

[Khar]

The government source still disagrees with you guys, providing real data on the topic.

There are also homeless people living on the streets of every single major city in Canada, earning less than minimum wage an hour. Surely wage inequality must be worse because there exists people who sit on the street?

In a nation where standard of living and poverty indicators have been improving for decades now, things have to be somewhat good for Canada, no? Considering you recently used Borjas to comment on Canadian immigration, this article is the perfect example of how the two nations have very different results for immigration, whatever you choose to quote from the article. Indeed, it even reinforces my claims (which I have already backed up) showing that Canada gets a decent amount of skilled workers from good countries into our nation. Since you recently demanded I back up my comments, this source should also sate that a bit.

You did fail to quote the following:

Quote:

Most of these effects, however, were small when compared to actual wage changes and were consequently not the main explanation for the developments in earnings inequality in these three countries.

They might cause a minor decrease to wages, but if they are entering an industry which is booming, for example, then in the long-term, there won't be a negative impact, and having more people working will improve the positive impacts at the end of the line.

Here's two bits from the actual article (yay for free access!) which you two may wish to read:

Quote:

It is of interest to compare these predicted wage shifts with what actually happened to the Canadian wage distribution. The bottom row of the top panel reports the change in the (real) log weekly wage of each education group between 1980 and 2000. All education groups suffered a decline in the real wage between 1980 and 2000. It is evident that immigration into Canada cannot explain the differences in relative wage shifts across education groups. There are clearly many other factors that affect the Canadian wage structure and that have been essentially absorbed by the fixed effects included in the regression models.

Quote:

Economic theory suggests that, at least in the short run, immigrant-induced shifts in labor supply should lead to oppositesigned changes in the wage of competing workers. This wage response is a crucial parameter not only in the study of the efficiency and distributional impact of international migration, but also in the policy debate over how to best regulate the population flows.

This paper supports what I have said in the past. In the short run, we do pay for immigrants, but it doesn't cost as much as you guys have been saying. In the long run, these problems disappear and they become economically beneficial. Also, the work supports what I have said in the past (and regressions I have done in the past) about Toronto, Bruce -- considering you take where the tech bubble crashed (ie the high of a bubble) as the rate Toronto should have had, your data is in error. In addition, it fails to rectify the existence of a million more people working in the labour force in Toronto pre- and post-recession.

[andyt]

Of course over time immigrants become Canadians. But the analysis of how immigrants do since the 1980's when the big shift to Asian immigration started is that they are much slower to integrate economically. Gruber's analysis is just about low income people costing the govt more in benefits than they pay in taxes. A very simple concept that applies to native Canadian working poor as well. But his point is that we keep importing more of these people every year, with pressure to raise the limit even higher. So every year we are adding people who take more than they contribute.

And his point is that this depresses wages and keeps them down. It just seems so obvious. If we didn't bring in so many people every year who will take any job at any wage because it's still better than what they had, and they have to live, then wages at the bottom would rise. Some businesses would go out of business because they are so marginal they can't pay more, while most businesses would raise prices a bit and we'd all move on and have a lot less poverty. At least among those who can and will work. But if you cry for those marginal businesses, well maybe we shouldn't have any minimum wage, let them pay 5 bucks a day like they do in Asia. We could have a whole lot of economic activity that way. So so good for those workers tho.

[EyeBrock]

andy, do you ever get tired of pissing in the wind?

I don't want to start a fight but...

[andyt]

EyeBrock wrote:

andy, do you ever get tired of pissing in the wind?

I don't want to start a fight but...

When people write a sentence like that, the don't and but are really superfluous, don't change the meaning at all.

I don't get tired of pissing in the wind because the wind will shift.

The knock against the Fraser Institute is that they have an agenda. You bet they do, a pro business neo-con agenda. If even they say that importing lots of people to depress wages is costing us money, it seems worth a listen. And the only thing Khar can do is knock their reputation because there is no counter study to put against what Grubel has said. And he's an economist, ex-uni prof. Don't know why he's supposedly full of shit but the economist that agrees with Khar isn't.

And then we have people like Martin Calacott and James Bisset, formerly high up in the immigration department, who are now free to speak out telling us it's broken. Seem like a good idea to listen to them instead of just the vote sucking pc crap coming from the official sources.

[Bruce_the_vii]

It's true that both immigrant and indigenous low wage workers are net subsidized by the nanny state. This is part of the status quo. The nut is does growth make the situation worse? Does immigration make the status quo worse? It's possible to squeeze the bottom and put businesses there out of business with wage inflation. This is what Japan did and then the four Asian Tigers. You can change the shape of growth with immigration. Complaining that immigrants are subsidized muddies that waters.

[EyeBrock]

andyt wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

andy, do you ever get tired of pissing in the wind?

I don't want to start a fight but...

When people write a sentence like that, the don't and but are really superfluous, don't change the meaning at all.

I don't get tired of pissing in the wind because the wind will shift.

The knock against the Fraser Institute is that they have an agenda. You bet they do, a pro business neo-con agenda. If even they say that importing lots of people to depress wages is costing us money, it seems worth a listen. And the only thing Khar can do is knock their reputation because there is no counter study to put against what Grubel has said. And he's an economist, ex-uni prof. Don't know why he's supposedly full of shit but the economist that agrees with Khar isn't.

And then we have people like Martin Calacott and James Bisset, formerly high up in the immigration department, who are now free to speak out telling us it's broken. Seem like a good idea to listen to them instead of just the vote sucking pc crap coming from the official sources.

No, I really don't want to fight you.

[andyt]

See, you're no fun.

[EyeBrock]

I know!

[peck420]

I don't see how overall immigration levels are a problem.

The problem is that immigrants trend to 4 areas, where as we could use a lot of them in other places...like here in Alberta. And, Saskatchewan will need plenty shortly.

Maybe our government could offer an incentive, like fast tracking citizenship, if immigrants are willing to move to the areas as needed?

I have always been frustrated with the fact that I can't always get Canadian employees to the point that I have imported foreign workers...it's really a disservice to all of Canada, but I can not control it due to freedom of movement.

[EyeBrock]

Nice idea, the fast tracking to immigrants going to Nunavut etc, but its against the Holy Charter.

[andyt]

EyeBrock wrote:

Nice idea, the fast tracking to immigrants going to Nunavut etc, but its against the Holy Charter.

The UN agreements we signed aren't too big on it either. Too bad we don't try to come up with something. I would be a lot happier about immgrants if they were settling in small towns and creating economic activity there. But, it would probably just look like Indian reserves do now - bunch of people on welfare complaining because the govt doesn't give them enough money. There has to be a reason why people move to an area, you can't just jumpstart it by thinking if they move there the jobs will come. I believe the USSR did a lot of that stuff, and it didn't work out too well.