How manicures explain the benefits of low-skilled immigration
http://qz.com/82773/how-manicures-explain-the-benefits-of-low-skilled-immigration/
An interesting study, (possibly) relevant to the Brexit question
...
It might be easier if we talk about manicures. The manicure business in the US has been driven by immigrants. Its low-skilled, low-capital service work. For instance, Vietnamese immigrants and their families make up nearly 80% of manicurists in California, and 40% of manicurists across the nation.
So you could say that foreign manicurists have taken the jobs of hard-working American hand-and-foot maintainers, but the reality is more complicated. A study in California (pdf) found that between 1987 and 2002, 35,700 Vietnamese manicurists went to work there. But they didnt exactly put native-born workers out of business. For every five Vietnamese who entered, two non-Vietnamese workers were displacedbut the authors are quick to note that most of that effect came from workers choosing not to enter the profession, rather than people who already worked as manicurists losing their jobs.
Why was this possible? Because the immigrants werewait for itinnovators in the manicure space. They developed the idea of the standalone nail salon that reduced costs, making a once-exclusive service commonplace. That meant more nails to paint, not just more workers per nail. The benefits of immigration accrued to people who got their nails painted, to the new immigrants, and even to the remaining non-Vietnamese manicurists.
While nail-care business might not be the perfect stand-in for all low-income work, it does reflect what economists find more broadly: When new immigrants come, it does mean new competition for similarly-skilled local workers, but the new immigrants may also create opportunities that lead to more investment, which maintains wage growth and leads to economic growth. Indeed, with more immigration, average wages seem to rise, not fall.