Hacker News Reader

Comment by profdevloper | Hacker News Reader

Why is immigration always absent from these discussions on HN? the US has absorbed millions of people through immigration (both legal and illegal) which puts pressure on housing supply which drives up prices since supply is relatively inelastic. Enforcement of immigration policy would increase housing supply without needing to build more capacity in the short term and would lower prices.

View on HN

It was pointed out to me recently that immigration crackdown has maybe already started to affect housing prices in DFW since H1B crackdown. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2026-dallas-h1b-housing-m...

We need immigration because there’s a construction worker shortage. No immigrants = even more expensive to build new homes

The only shortage is in pay. I and many other people left trades becauses wages were crap for jobs that take 20 years of your life away. Despite the memes about trades, the majority of trade workers are not making bank unless they have an unusual specialty and a union. 1 plumber in Manhatten doing making bank doesn't make the plumbers all across the rest of the nation wealthy.

Ok? If you want natives to take these jobs construction prices will go up. So we need immigrants to affordably build things. If all construction workers are native going forward the vast majority of people will never be able to afford a home other than inheriting one.

Labor is a fraction of the cost of trade work. The highest expensive is in most cases the bulk construction materials, next is the cost of management and bureaucracy. The excuses of labor costing more here is just that, an excuse, most often used by large corporations to try and excuse them offshoring everything and hollowed out the organization for short term gains.

Why can't we train our own citizens to become construction workers?

If you claim that people "don't want to work" for those wages, then isn't immigration keeping our wages down?

Wouldn't business owners pay more for labor if there wasn't a stead supply of under the table illegal immigrants doing it for less?

Immigration is keeping wages down for jobs natives dont want. I dont see the issue.

> Wouldn't business owners pay more for labor if there wasn't a stead supply of under the table illegal immigrants doing it for less?

Maybe, or maybe they just employ less people and less things get built.

There's no such thing as "jobs natives don't want", only "wages natives don't want".

> Maybe, or maybe they just employ less people and less things get built.

The foreign born population residing in the US fell from ~15% to ~5% from 1920-1970. It was one of the most prosperous and productive periods in human history.

US was prosperous post war because the industrial capacity of the rest of the world was destroyed. Comparing that time period to any other doesnt make sense.

We can only employ natives if we want, we just have to accept that prices of things that are currently run on immigrant labor will go up, and a lot less of it will be produced. Personally I am unwilling to make that tradeoff but obviously you dont have to agree. US labor market suffers seriously from baumol's cost disease, only solution to that is immigration with the understanding that immigrants will take unwanted jobs in exchange for a better life for their kids.

Everyone has their own priorities, I guess. I'm not willing to drive down Americans' wages to save a buck on strawberries.

We also need immigration because it grows the GDP, makes for a dynamic and resilient economy, increases scientific and technological output and raises the standard of living.

Immigration is what made America great.

I think immigration from developing nations does raise the standard of living for the immigrant (e.g. India), but not for the host nation -- it's called "regression to the mean". As far as GDP goes, I always think of this:

> Two economists are walking in a forest when they Come across a pile of shit.

> The first economist says to the other "Ill pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

> They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says "l pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

> Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"

That’s funny. Here’s one.

Lawyer: “Can a foreign citizen donate to a U.S. campaign?”

Judge: “No.”

Lawyer: “What if we put millions of them into a multinational corporation first?”

Judge: “Now you’re speaking constitutional law.”

If there is reduced demand for new housing due to increased inventory, there's less of a demand on construction for new housing. The expenses involved in new builds is both labor and building codes/restrictions - construction firms undercut Americans by hiring foreign labor that they can pay under the table.

I would much prefer Americans pay a premium for skilled American labor and choose to live in more modestly-sized homes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com