Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.
Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.
Borjas's results consistently lie at the furthest extreme of existing studies. You can see this in the survey I linked. If I claim that the aggregate of research doesn't show a long-term effect of immigration on wages, it's not a rebuttal to cite a subset of data from one tail of the distribution.
Less abstractly, Borjas's methods are viewed as suspect by other economists working in this area. See, e.g, this review[1].
Don't forget that some industries can't exist if there aren't enough workers. Density of human capital is sometimes a prerequisite to a sustainable business.
For example, silicon valley would be much smaller and the net value of companies much lower if not for the global inflow of talent. Even if the average wage was reduced (and I doubt it, I think it's only likely for commodity labour, scale enables specialization which pays more) the total wage is much higher. You also need to look at the displacement effect - what happened to jobs with other sets of skills that now have fewer workers.
Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.
Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinto...