Migration cuts local wages even as it expands the economy for investors, the globalist pro-migration Economist magazine admitted.
“A [migration] clampdown would also benefit GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per person—the yardstick by which economists usually assess living standards,” the magazine admitted Sunday and added:
As immigration surged in 2022 and 2023, GDP per person in Britain fell. It has tumbled in Germany. In Canada it remains nearly 4% off its high in 2022. This has happened in part because the latest arrivals are on average less skilled than the resident population, meaning that they cannot command high salaries.
“Reducing immigration could stop the [wage] slide in the short term,” the magazine acknowledged under the reluctant headline “The rich world revolts against sky-high immigration.”
The admission comes amid a flood of other establishment admissions that the federal policy of Extraction Migration hurts Americans’ wages, housing costs, and productivity. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City reported in May that “Sectors with some of the highest immigrant workforce growth, such as construction and manufacturing, saw the sharpest deceleration in wage growth (specifically, average hourly earnings) from 2021 to 2023.”
The admission by a pro-migration publication is a useful vaccine against continued claims by reporters at pro-migration media outlets that migration is good for Americans. For example, Jonathan Weisman, a politics writer for the New York Times, wrote a July 18 article scoffing at Sen. JD Vance’s criticism of U.S. immigration policy, saying:
Decades of economic research have also raised doubts that immigrants — especially undocumented immigrants — really suppress domestic wages. Most immigrant labor goes to work Americans don’t want, like in farm labor and meatpacking. Legal immigrants are often highly skilled, imported specifically for industries where skilled Americans are in short supply.
“The theory that immigrants drive down wages and employment opportunities for the native-born has been repeatedly tested,” Eric Levitz at Vox.com wrote on July 17. “The consensus of the empirical literature suggests they generally do not,” he insisted without checking Goldman Sachs or the White House’s economic advisors.
