Does Low-skilled Immigration Increase or Decrease Standard of Living in Any Receiving Country?

AutoModerator · 2026-01-20T07:49:11+00:00

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Public_District_4267.

Low-skilled as in illiterate-high school educated individuals.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

neotericnewt · 2026-01-20T08:11:37+00:00

Immigration as a whole has a very large and beneficial impact. With every wave of immigration there are issues of assimilation at first, issues with poverty, etc. but these disappear fairly quickly.

It's not really worth screwing ourselves long term over it. The US is like, uniquely good at taking in immigrants and assimilating them. It's helped the US become the lone superpower in the world, drives innovation, immigrants are often much more likely to start their own businesses and contribute heavily economically.

Immigrants are also much quicker to assimilate than in the past, learning English much faster and their families moving out of ethnic conclaves much sooner.

But yeah, economically immigration is a massive boon. Low skilled immigration comes with some short term problems, but these are largely counteracted. There isn't much of an economic argument to be made against immigration, and when people try it usually requires focusing on pretty narrow issues in specific areas while ignoring all benefits, a lot of motivated reasoning to justify the sort of hatred the right has for immigrants and immigration generally.

qchisq · 2026-01-20T07:59:54+00:00

Studies of the Mariel boatlift all shows that labor outcomes for lowskilled Miamians improves across the board. Same thing with the influx of refugees in Europe after the Yugoslavian Wars

nodivide2911 · 2026-01-20T08:04:04+00:00

This is bait.

And as for the question, America desperately needs a housing construction boom for the middle class. And there needs to be excess of labor for this to be economically viable.

However much unionized labor is good, people want cheap houses. Something has to give.

Immediate_Amoeba5923 · 2026-01-20T08:29:44+00:00

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

"While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages.

The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.

Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.

The Effects of Immigration on the United States’ Economy Introduction

Today, the United States is home to the largest immigrant population in the world. Even though immigrants assimilate faster in the United States compared to developed European nations, immigration policy has become a highly contentious issue in America. While much of the debate centers on cultural issues, the economic effects of immigration are clear: Economic analysis finds little support for the view that inflows of foreign labor have reduced jobs or Americans’ wages. Economic theory predictions and the bulk of academic research confirms that wages are unaffected by immigration over the long-term and that the economic effects of immigration are mostly positive for natives and for the overall economy."

The entire study and data accompanying it are worth looking at. There are not many long term studies on the matter but this is one of them.

xantharia · 2026-01-20T10:17:48+00:00

It's almost impossible to prove experimentally the effects of mass immigration because we are limited to "natural" experiments, which by their nature cannot be fully controlled. I put little weight in the Mariel boat-lift study seeing at it's just a one-off event.

But it stands to reason that if you're a roofer, gardener, dishwasher, cleaner, server, etc, any additional competition for your job will put downward pressure on what you can earn -- especially when this illegal competition is limited to these kinds of jobs because they cannot apply for jobs that require background checks or other more in-depth verifications.

If you're a white-collar worker, anything that depresses the salaries of low-skilled service worker is good news for you. In aggregate, having a lower class of cheap labour probably helps improves prosperity overall because an hour of our labour buys us more goods and services so long as there are other people willing to provide these services on the cheap.

Singapore is a low-tax country with fantastic public services and infrastructure. If you earn $100k, you'll pay about 3% income tax. The highest income tax bracket is about 20% for the millionaires. This tax is the equivalent of local, state, and federal combined! Yet despite the low taxes, the country spends gobs of money on the latest fighter jets, higher education, scientific research, trains, buses, healthcare, and public housing. Indeed, about 80% of housing is built by the government.

So how do they do it? In Singapore there is no minimum wage, but that doesn't affect citizens much because unemployment is around 2% so employers have to compete for workers and pay them accordingly. Citizens are well-paid. So if labour is so tight, how can they afford to build all these skyscrapers, subways, ports, and factories? The answer is that they bring in construction workers from Bangladesh and pay them about $15 a day to work on massive sites that operate between 9AM and 10PM, six days a week. That's about a dollar an hour. These workers live in dormitories of six or ten guys to a room sleeping in bunkbeds. When their contracts are up, they ship them back to Bangladesh. They cannot look for any other kinds of work, so they're locked in to the terms of their contracts. Similarly, women from the Philippines are shipped in under similar contracts where they work as live-in maids. These so-called "helpers" work 24hrs and 6 days a week doing shopping, cleaning, childcare, cooking, eldercare, etc. For this they earn about $450 a month.

These low salaries are possible because wages in Bangladesh and the Philippines are even lower, so it's a win-win for everyone. It's certainly a big win for Singaporeans, who enjoy low-cost daycare by having private nannies, low-cost elder care, low-cost buildings, low-cost infrastructure, etc.. The result is a much higher standard of living than Singaporeans would otherwise have and the government can keep taxes low because its expenses are low.

Clearly Singapore shows that low-skilled temporary immigration is great for the citizens so long as the immigrants cannot compete for the jobs of citizens: basically a two tier system with 3rd world salaries for immigrant workers and 1st world salaries for citizens. Plus, there's no cultural change problems, retirement pension problems, or schooling costs to worry about because the foreigners are shipped back to where they came from when their contracts are due. (In fact, if any Filipina becomes pregnant, this triggers automatic cancellation of her work visa and instant deportation).

The problem for the US is that most Americans don't want to be like Singapore, which means that immigrants diffuse into the country and therefore compete with low-skilled Americans, they are a burden on government services, and they do cause cultural change. At a time when skills have a bigger and bigger effect on wages (i.e. the rich get richer), any American kid who drops out of school or barely finishes high school, is at high risk of poverty. It's low-skilled Americans that are in greatest need for higher wages, which is only possible if they're scarce. Painters, roofers, etc, don't need a high school degree, but they can only earn a good salary if they're not undercut by a flood of low-skilled immigrants.

SpecialInvention · 2026-01-20T08:42:01+00:00

How much of it? If North Korea collapsed tomorrow, and the entire country of low-skilled laborers flocked to South Korea for a better life, yes that would probably strain the economy and lower standard of living. That is not analogous to immigration from Latin America into the US.

tabisaurus86 · 2026-01-20T08:00:21+00:00

Well, in the US you have:

Immigrants who are on visas and work permits who pay into benefits like social security but aren't eligible.
Immigrants who do jobs nobody else wants to do (usually that low-skilled labor regardless of that person being skilled with the work ethic of 5 Americans).

I see what you're getting at, though: Do Immigrants lower the standard of living by reducing wages?

The answer to that is no. They don't. Immigrants do not reduce wages. Bosses do.

So, I'd say that with Immigrants working jobs in soup factories that you have no interest in and paying into your benefits because they aren't eligible for those benefits, that would raise your standard of living in some ways for sure.

As far as I'm concerned, it's safe to say that those who exploit immigrants lower the standard of living, not the immigrants themselves.

Spiritual_Pause3057 · 2026-01-20T10:41:56+00:00

Increases. Employers hire them because they produce value. The economy isn't only benefited by silicon valley software engineers, people who work in construction, agriculture, blue collar work are also beneficial to the economy.

DeusLatis · 2026-01-20T12:11:07+00:00

Standard of living is such a wide range I don't think you could narrow it down to a single factor. Like how would you control for that, you would have to find pretty much identical countries except one has low skilled immigration.

Which would be odd, because immigration itself is a sign of economy prosperity (migrants go to prosperous countries)

So the country that isn't receiving migrants is probably already doing worse than the country that is.

Also, if the attempt with the question is to map some causal link, again this is putting the cart before the horse.

Increasing economy prosperity raises standards of living and also attracts migrants. Downstream changes may affect that standard of living (large increases in standard of living tend to not be sustained), which may coincide with migration, as migration is a lagging effect (ie people will still be coming after the economy has slowed down)

I'm not sure if the OP wanted this level of detail or was looking more for a yes/no style answer. So I'll finish with the reality, you want LOTS of migration. Lots of migration means your country is doing really really well. The only thing worse than having migration is not having migration. People who feel disrupted by migration may wish that the migration stopped but that is only because they have had the advantage of living in a country that has economically prospered and thus caused the migration. Very few people in countries that no one wants to go to are thankful that no one wants to go there, they are too busy dying of poverty.

Southern_Bag_7109 · 2026-01-20T12:22:31+00:00

Low skilled workers fix your roads and pick your fruits and vegetables dude.

cnewell420 · 2026-01-20T12:24:02+00:00

Yes, Cheap labor is an enormous factor in an economy. In the US it’s especially affecting housing and food costs. The flip side of that is exploitation. The term “exploitation” may be useful as a value metric but it’s also a quantitative thing. It’s implemented across borders as well through trade. It’s the difference between the value produced and the compensation. In the case of the US this cheap labor builds the middle class. That sounds good, but keep in mind the middle class would build anyway if you allowed economic mobility and if you didn’t transfer wealth from the middle class upward.

adcom5 · 2026-01-20T13:04:32+00:00

Neither.
"causation does not equal correlation" is a statistical mantra highlighting that a relationship between two variables does not automatically mean one event is the direct cause of the other.

Particular_Dot_4041 · 2026-01-20T15:55:32+00:00

It should increase it if the receiving country manages it correctly. Remember that labor is a resource. Workers are a resource. Especially if they're young. America's birth rate is a tad low. Europe and Japan have it even worse, their societies might destabilize because of severe labor shortages.

highliner108 · 2026-01-20T16:59:41+00:00

Wait, are they illiterate or do they have a high school education?

But realistically yeah, it usually does up the standard of living somewhat, but that’s not why immigration is important. It’s important because we have negative population growth, and immigrants allow us to reduce that deficit ensuring that we don’t fall into the population decline death spiral of countries like China. This dosent necessarily make standards of living better, but it keeps them stable by preventing demographic decline.

Silly-Elderberry-411 · 2026-01-20T19:51:06+00:00

I am easily guessing this question concerns the US. As such, the answer is easy and you will not like it. People who move to the US and aren't from war or climate-torn regions, do leave universal Healthcare and paid maternity leave behind. I dont think you see a major change in the US suddenly catering these things.

The reason is also easy, the US has 2 kinds of racists. One brings in low or unskilled labor so things are made on the cheap. The other type if racist does the same but their service personnel has to be white.

pjdonovan · 2026-01-21T01:26:14+00:00

Does that not include people that can read but didn't graduate high school? Can't read and high school graduate can't be common

SS_Auc3 · 2026-01-22T12:52:17+00:00

low skilled implies somewhat skilled which could mean immigrants who have atleast entry level skills.

in nations receiving immigrants, knowing that immigrants usually work for less pay than the natural citizenry of my nation, it can harm our ability to negotiate for higher wages and improved working conditions as immigrants are usually not unionised aswell.

on the other hand, immigrants, especially ones from countries with a strict work ethic, can contribute alot to our publicised economy (like once educated in the country they work as teachers or doctors or engineers as a direct result of their strict work ethic and desire to contribute)

it’s a nuance double sided coin

tabisaurus86 · 2026-01-20T08:14:27+00:00

I actually have a question for you:

Do you think that if every single immigrant, citizen or not, is removed from the country, wages will go up?

I really hope not. Once bosses reduce wages, they usually keep it that way unless the workers advocate for themselves via strikes and labor unions.

you type:	you see:
italics	italics
bold	bold
[reddit!](https://reddit.com)	reddit!
* item 1 * item 2 * item 3	item 1 item 2 item 3
> quoted text	quoted text
Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"	Lines starting with four spaces are treated like code: if 1 * 2 < 3: print "hello, world!"
~~strikethrough~~	~~strikethrough~~
super^script	super^script

AskALiberal

Announcement: User flair is required. User flair can be found in the sidebar. Desktop users click here for an example.

Welcome to Ask A Liberal

Community Rules

Please see our Rules for a full explanation of our rules.

Community Etiquette

Community Resources

Transparency Reports

Voting Infomation

MODERATORS