>>12593003This boneheaded analysis needs to stop being taught at undergrad. It provides 0 relevant insight into immigration.
From a theoretical standpoint, it suffers in that it creates an abstraction of the macroeconomy as a single homogenous market. Clue, it isn't. The economy is made up of all different markets which are fundamentally structured in all kinds of ways.
Now, strictly assuming Walras' Law holds true, then Say's law will also hold true in this context. However, that does not mean the impact is uniform across all markets. The structure of the incoming labour supply is not equal to the structure of the host nations labour supply. Immigrants will tend to concentrate in certain markets etc. This is a result of negative selection (can be positive selection, but in most net in empirical cases, its negatives). The roy model gives us an idea of this selection.
So we have a situation where demand for goods and services in the economy sees a uniform increase, but low skill industries get a huge labour increase whereas high skill industries get a much smaller one. So wages in low skills industry fall massively due to excess supply, but wages in high skill industry get driven upwards due to the extra demand in the economy.
So the objective problem of immigration isn't 'muh wages', its much more of an issue of rising inequality. Obviously the left struggles with this concept, as they are pro-immigration and pro-equality at the same time.
This is all just theory, but major periods of immigration tend to support it. The relevant literature here is Card (1990) and Borjas (2015) are the relevant literature.
So please fuck off posting your shitty napkin graphs on /sci/, all it does is give a bad name to economics as you can see from
>>12593016>>12593113 
