Economic Policy Institute Argues Against All Evidence Offered by the Economic Policy Institute

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is one of the best resources for information about the struggle of American workers. In particular, EPI has conducted studies that prove the exploitation of alien workers in the United States. It was EPI that released a story showing that the Top 30 H-1B employers had laid off 85,000 workers while accumulating foreign workers. EPI also has testified to Congress about the abuse of the H-2A and H-2B visas on both foreign and domestic workers. So it is remarkable that the same EPI is out with a story suggesting that immigrants are not hurting American workers. Not at all? Not one? Has EPI read…EPI?

The ridiculous article in question was written by a great thinker, Daniel Costa. Costa wrote or contributed to many of the studies and articles from EPI regarding the exploitation of foreign and domestic workers. So, surely, he understands how absurd it is to claim no harm has befallen American workers due to mass immigration. 

Before we dive into Costa’s argument for why immigration does not hurt American workers, it is important to point out what argument Costa does not make–namely that mass immigration HELPS American workers. This is important since the immigration policy of the United States, like all U.S. policy, should ideally be working to further the interests of American citizens. Costa, also does not say that migrating to the United States is helping the immigrants themselves. This is likely because Costa has written extensively how foreign workers in the U.S. are being exploited.

So what is Costa’s argument for why immigration is not harming American workers? Costa observes that American unemployment is low while immigration over the last few years has been high. He also points out that that the labor force participation rate is high for prime working age Americans. The point about the participation rate is used to make three variations of the same argument. Namely, Costa is saying no American that wants to work is being stopped by the influx of millions of migrant workers. 

First things first, Costa says NOTHING about wages. Not one reason Costa provides as proof of neutral impact covers wages. While supply and demand would no doubt suggest some Americans are losing out on jobs due to a labor market bulging with millions of cheaper alternatives, even if we accept Costa’s argument regarding labor participation, that says nothing about wages. 

What Costa is doing is something many politicians are attempting, basically they pretend Americans having a “job” is equivalent to having a job with a living wage and financial independence. However, American workers are worried about having a job that allows them to afford to eat and pay their bills. 

On that score, Costa and EPI have already done the research to expose the wage suppression from migrant workers. Costa and Ron Hira wrote for EPI of massive wage theft in the H-1B program. It was Daniel Costa writing about frightfully low wages for farmworkers. And yes, it was also Daniel Costa talking about wage suppression in the H-2B program. 

I know all of this because I read EPI and Daniel Costa regularly. Which makes this all the more baffling to read. Costa knows full well that the business community in the United States supports expanding immigration because they want cheaper labor. Businesses are aware that the law of supply and demand means expanding the labor force reduces worker bargaining power and thus their wages. 

We also know companies are seeking out vulnerable workers who will accept lower pay and abuse to avoid threats of deportation. There is also no doubt that the existence of millions of vulnerable workers desperate for jobs means American workers have to compete by reducing their wage demands and accepting abuse as well or face being fired for a cheaper worker. 

We also know that industries that are heavily dependent on foreign labor are prone to labor violations. Agriculture, construction, and fast food industries are consistently on the Department of Labor’s Low Wage/High Violation list. There are stories coming out all the time of forced labor, wage theft, and child labor in all of these industries. You think American workers attempting to pursue employment in these industries are not harmed? 

Further, some of these foreign dependent industries, like meat processing, are currently being exposed for industry-wide wage suppression schemes that are built, at least in part, on the availability of massive cheap labor importation. 

In his defense, Costa argues for focusing on employers. For him, what we need is more regulation and enforcement of more stringent labor laws. Of course, if you read Daniel Costa you already know labor violation investigations are dipping at record low levels in recent years. And even if you agree with Costa that we should focus on unscrupulous employers, the expansion of the regulatory state and creation of new labor laws would require years of policy work and hiring and training of staff to implement. For the workers being exploited today, this is just fantasy. 

There is no doubt that employers must be punished for hiring illegal workers and exploiting their legal workforces. The mere fact that Costa acknowledges these employers exist and that abuse is happening in the current system undercuts his argument. Yes, these employers exist and are taking advantage of the current immigration system. Therefore, American workers are being hurt by immigration today.

What Costa really should be arguing is that if the country adopted his vision for labor enforcement, then immigration would not harm American workers. The crucial distinction being American workers are not living in Daniel Costa’s head. Additionally, Costa is simply wrong about the impact of numbers on immigration. When immigration rises above the capacity of the society to absorb them, then scarcity of resources and the tragedy of the commons activate and devastate the quality of life and wages of all in the society. Just read all of EPI and Costa’s other work to witness the costs of mass immigration.

In essence, Costa is arguing that importing a new population bigger than that of 36 states has no impact at all on workers. So he’s saying the largest border crisis on record has bankrupted cities, forced states and local communities to declare a state of emergency, and has fueled hundreds of thousands of overdoses, but it has had zero impact on workers. Note again, Costa does not even argue that the immigration boom has helped Americans. He’s saying they have no impact at all! The irony is that he doth protest too much. His own work disproves him along with the lived experience of most Americans. In the end, Costa’s arguments just demonstrate the desperate need for the public to be educated on the costs of immigration.