Maybe you should look into where statistics that are "going around" are sourced from. This seems to be something an anti-immigration lobby cooked to in 2014, which was an artifact of their analysis; they considered workers aged 16-65, and the effect disappeared if you considered workers of all ages.
Trump resurrected it in 2024 to claim that all job growth under Biden had gone to immigrants. It wasn't true then either.
> wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
A little less than 10% of the workforce.
GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.
Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.
Do you happen to remember where this stat came from? I have not heard about it and would be interested in learning more about it
I'm not OP, but after many long hours of research, and oh so many vague references, i am now pretty sure that this is the original source:
https://youtube.com/shorts/29iZS4vAGV4?si=IhkMkEZweNv1uHro
No, this only makes it so that H1B and others are more at the mercy of their employers.
Maybe you should look into where statistics that are "going around" are sourced from. This seems to be something an anti-immigration lobby cooked to in 2014, which was an artifact of their analysis; they considered workers aged 16-65, and the effect disappeared if you considered workers of all ages.
Trump resurrected it in 2024 to claim that all job growth under Biden had gone to immigrants. It wasn't true then either.
wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
> wait, how many workers fall outside the 16-65 range??
A little less than 10% of the workforce.
GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.
Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.
This is going to be followed up with - DHS creates an “extraordinary” carve out for large tech companies and anyone who pays into Trump’s pockets.
And mid size companies hire foreign workers in foreign countries and accelerate offshoring.
People then talk about how government should restrict offshoring and punish companies while the Orange Man manufactures his phone and caps in China.
Surely a win for the people.