I'm not sure why the editorializing in the title but here's the actual abstract:
> From early 2021 to early 2024, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented boom in unauthorized immigration, followed by a rapid slowdown beginning in mid-2024. We provide the first systematic empirical assessment of the labor- and housing-market effects of this episode. Using newly available administrative microdata on individual immigrants, we construct measures of net unauthorized immigration at the national and local levels and exploit plausibly exogenous variation across local markets. We find that unauthorized immigrant worker flows (UIWF) increased local employment approximately one-for-one, without significant declines in local wages. These inflows also raised local house prices and rents without expanding housing supply, consistent with a housing demand shock in the face of short-run inelastic supply. Lastly, we find that UIWF reduced labor income per capita, consistent with downward wage composition of the local workforce, and strongly reduced government transfers. These findings should help inform policy debates surrounding how unauthorized immigrant labor supply impacts local labor and housing markets as well as public finances.
Basically what the paper says is at a city-by-city level unauthorized immigrants increase housing prices in to a similar degree to authorized immigrants (about 1% pop increase -> 2% housing price increase), are roughly 100% employed (increase local employment 1:1), and use government services at a lower rate than the base population (about 1% pop increase -> overall 5% decrease in spending). Then a lot of discussion about methodology and related work. I'm a little skeptical of some of the assumptions, they (and apparently the citations) don't appear to account for the fact that in all cases people are more likely to move to places with jobs (economic activity driving labor demand), housing supply is generally pretty inelastic on the scale of a couple years, and so even if nobody moved to the city it's possible wages (and housing prices) would go up anyway.
However, they seem to simply assert causality. It would seem far more likely that people (illegal or not) move to areas experiencing economic booms that, among other things, is push up home prices.
> This is a detailed study performed by experts. Do you believe they would overlook such obvious explanation?
Yes, they could have possibly overlooked things that appear to be obvious in retrospect. Happens all the time because it may or not have been the focus of the paper, or the time constraints may have not permitted this level of research. This is why we usually have multiple papers, each building on each other over time, on the same data sets/topics.
In Australia something similar happened with legal immigration going wild. Obviously there are issues of regulations and NIMBYsm which are far worst than in the US but also because construction unions opposed visas for construction workers, so there is a shortage while all kind of people with unnecessary jobs streamed into the country. The squeeze is from both sides of the political spectrum, asset holding class benefit from it financially and the left benefit from it electoraly by creating poverty and state dependency. No wonder extreme political groups from both ends of the political sides are gaining traction. Those politician betrayed the middle class and working class.
I know it’s good for Blue Team redistricting, but I think we need to seriously reconsider the viability of moving every human on earth to 5 metro areas in the US.
People want to take care of their families, and they go where the jobs are. This has been happening for hundreds of years now, I don't know if it's possible to turn it around.
Higher-level governments elected by the electorate of a larger region are trying hard to make it explicitly illegal for those metro areas to do those things.
If ya build more housing, the value of existing homes might go down. Unfortunately, nobody wants to see their home decrease in value so they don’t want new construction. Or they want it “over there a ways” such that it’s not a negative. Commuting gets worse as there’s no satellite jobs or work from home.
And nobody it seems wants to see higher density housing unless there’s really no choice. So people end up in large housing which is mostly empty after the kid(s) leave. And their retirement depends on selling out for a profit.
>> "Unauthorized Immigration. As noted earlier, we use unauthorized immigrants to refer
to individuals who enter the U.S. without formal admission under immigration law. A large
share of these individuals are encountered by federal authorities at ports of entry, along the
border, or in the interior and are subsequently issued an NTA in immigration court, allowing
them to seek asylum or otherwise challenge removal. [...]"
Probably and it seems a good compromise to me. Under asylum law, "illegal" is technically wrong until the final judgement is rendered. And "undocumented" is IMO an obvious manipulation of language (you would not call a doctor practicing without a medical license "undocumented"). Pending a decision on legality, "unauthorized" seems both neutral and correct.
Probably. "Undocumented" doesn't make sense in the case of the many immigrants that Biden waved in, who were in fact documented, and told to show up for asylum hearings in the future. But because nearly all of those people do not have valid asylum claims, it's a bit weird to call them asylum seekers. And calling them "illegal immigrants" will invoke the ire of the left, despite that being considered a kosher term for many years, even among leading Dems (who have never apologized or been raked over the coals for using the term).
Cool, lets go after the businesses that hired them because they're the ones who can provide the equivelent remuneration and profitted off that.
Cause you know, that's typically how things work when you're actually concerned about economic impacts and arn't just a rcist dog whistling dog & pony circus show looking to deflect from the other bad to disasterous economic decisions.
Think about it: if this is true, American citizens have been harmed by Businesses that illegally hired workers and cause $X amount of damage. Instead of going after $X + damages of $Y, we've commited to spend $Z amount to go after those workers, even when all evidence points to the illegal hiring both brings in a profit and displaces american workers.
It's such a pointless series of racist shrugs and waste of tax payer funds. Instead of going after the profits of businesses, we go into debt trying to attack workers.
Yes, a demand increase without supply increase causes prices to rise.
In other news, water is wet.
The fact that people are arguing over this is astonishing to me. Politics morphing into the religion of modernity is the worst thing that has happened this century thus far.
Undocumented immigrants "raised local house prices and rents without expanding housing supply" — obviously, since local governments of both parties hate anyone who doesn't already own and make it illegal to build more housing. Not an immigration problem, although obviously the Trump administration is trying to make it more expensive to build by deporting anyone brown regardless of whether or not they're lawfully present (or even a citizen), tariffs, and pretty much the entire scope of Project 2025.
If I hadn't been hearing that the illegal immigrant population has remained unchanged at approximately 11 million _for decades_, I'd probably agree with you.
I think a lot of people are truly in denial about just how many illegal immigrants are in the country, and they all need housing.
Many (not all) of the people labeling this position as racist are themselves the immigrants. If you legally prevent someone from immigrating to your country, then the ability of the would-be immigrant to call you racist in a way that matters is severely curtailed (since they're not currently in your country, they might well not even be doing so in a language you speak).
I've said this a million times, there is no free lunch with using immigration to paper over population decline. One of the main problems has to do with housing. A baby will require their own separate housing in ~20 years. An immigrant needs it _today_. It's irrefutable that bringing in 100K immigrants, illegal or otherwise, in a year will strain the housing market more than 100K babies. We used to have a sustainable way of keeping pace with population growth.
Indeed, the rate of new housing construction in the US declined substantially after the 2008 GFC and never recovered. We are now experiencing the result of that. You can’t print housing stock. Immigration quota should be a function of housing costs and availability, otherwise you’re bidding up the cost of housing for everyone for gains for some.
Subsidize the housing if you must to ensure you have affordable housing for peak population before decline kicks in, as it will everywhere.
I'm not sure why the editorializing in the title but here's the actual abstract:
> From early 2021 to early 2024, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented boom in unauthorized immigration, followed by a rapid slowdown beginning in mid-2024. We provide the first systematic empirical assessment of the labor- and housing-market effects of this episode. Using newly available administrative microdata on individual immigrants, we construct measures of net unauthorized immigration at the national and local levels and exploit plausibly exogenous variation across local markets. We find that unauthorized immigrant worker flows (UIWF) increased local employment approximately one-for-one, without significant declines in local wages. These inflows also raised local house prices and rents without expanding housing supply, consistent with a housing demand shock in the face of short-run inelastic supply. Lastly, we find that UIWF reduced labor income per capita, consistent with downward wage composition of the local workforce, and strongly reduced government transfers. These findings should help inform policy debates surrounding how unauthorized immigrant labor supply impacts local labor and housing markets as well as public finances.
Basically what the paper says is at a city-by-city level unauthorized immigrants increase housing prices in to a similar degree to authorized immigrants (about 1% pop increase -> 2% housing price increase), are roughly 100% employed (increase local employment 1:1), and use government services at a lower rate than the base population (about 1% pop increase -> overall 5% decrease in spending). Then a lot of discussion about methodology and related work. I'm a little skeptical of some of the assumptions, they (and apparently the citations) don't appear to account for the fact that in all cases people are more likely to move to places with jobs (economic activity driving labor demand), housing supply is generally pretty inelastic on the scale of a couple years, and so even if nobody moved to the city it's possible wages (and housing prices) would go up anyway.
The research is impressive in its granularity.
However, they seem to simply assert causality. It would seem far more likely that people (illegal or not) move to areas experiencing economic booms that, among other things, is push up home prices.
This is a detailed study performed by experts. Do you believe they would overlook such obvious explanation?
I'm sorry, but your argument sounds like the typical HN oversimplification that leads people to say they could build Dropbox in a weekend.
> This is a detailed study performed by experts. Do you believe they would overlook such obvious explanation?
Yes, they could have possibly overlooked things that appear to be obvious in retrospect. Happens all the time because it may or not have been the focus of the paper, or the time constraints may have not permitted this level of research. This is why we usually have multiple papers, each building on each other over time, on the same data sets/topics.
In a properly functioning market, new supply would be built when there is new demand. Perhaps they should try to figure out why that isn't happening.
Housing suffers from being based on a naturally scarce resource land. Markets drive prices higher but new land cannot be created
[dead]
Pretty much the whole developed world is suffering excessive housing prices.
Whoever has the money to develop housing is in a position to exploit the scarcity as well.
as in most matters of public controversy, both things are true.
In Australia something similar happened with legal immigration going wild. Obviously there are issues of regulations and NIMBYsm which are far worst than in the US but also because construction unions opposed visas for construction workers, so there is a shortage while all kind of people with unnecessary jobs streamed into the country. The squeeze is from both sides of the political spectrum, asset holding class benefit from it financially and the left benefit from it electoraly by creating poverty and state dependency. No wonder extreme political groups from both ends of the political sides are gaining traction. Those politician betrayed the middle class and working class.
I know it’s good for Blue Team redistricting, but I think we need to seriously reconsider the viability of moving every human on earth to 5 metro areas in the US.
People want to take care of their families, and they go where the jobs are. This has been happening for hundreds of years now, I don't know if it's possible to turn it around.
Well it's those large metro areas that roll out the red carpet for them (assistance programs and sanctuary status), so I see no problem with it.
Higher-level governments elected by the electorate of a larger region are trying hard to make it explicitly illegal for those metro areas to do those things.
[dead]
If ya build more housing, the value of existing homes might go down. Unfortunately, nobody wants to see their home decrease in value so they don’t want new construction. Or they want it “over there a ways” such that it’s not a negative. Commuting gets worse as there’s no satellite jobs or work from home.
And nobody it seems wants to see higher density housing unless there’s really no choice. So people end up in large housing which is mostly empty after the kid(s) leave. And their retirement depends on selling out for a profit.
unauthorized? Are they trying to find a middle ground word between "illegal" and "undocumented"?
>> "Unauthorized Immigration. As noted earlier, we use unauthorized immigrants to refer to individuals who enter the U.S. without formal admission under immigration law. A large share of these individuals are encountered by federal authorities at ports of entry, along the border, or in the interior and are subsequently issued an NTA in immigration court, allowing them to seek asylum or otherwise challenge removal. [...]"
page 11
Probably and it seems a good compromise to me. Under asylum law, "illegal" is technically wrong until the final judgement is rendered. And "undocumented" is IMO an obvious manipulation of language (you would not call a doctor practicing without a medical license "undocumented"). Pending a decision on legality, "unauthorized" seems both neutral and correct.
Seems like a fairly neutral term to me.
Probably. "Undocumented" doesn't make sense in the case of the many immigrants that Biden waved in, who were in fact documented, and told to show up for asylum hearings in the future. But because nearly all of those people do not have valid asylum claims, it's a bit weird to call them asylum seekers. And calling them "illegal immigrants" will invoke the ire of the left, despite that being considered a kosher term for many years, even among leading Dems (who have never apologized or been raked over the coals for using the term).
Cool, lets go after the businesses that hired them because they're the ones who can provide the equivelent remuneration and profitted off that.
Cause you know, that's typically how things work when you're actually concerned about economic impacts and arn't just a rcist dog whistling dog & pony circus show looking to deflect from the other bad to disasterous economic decisions.
Think about it: if this is true, American citizens have been harmed by Businesses that illegally hired workers and cause $X amount of damage. Instead of going after $X + damages of $Y, we've commited to spend $Z amount to go after those workers, even when all evidence points to the illegal hiring both brings in a profit and displaces american workers.
It's such a pointless series of racist shrugs and waste of tax payer funds. Instead of going after the profits of businesses, we go into debt trying to attack workers.
Immigrants aren’t the ones restricting zoned capacity. That would be local government.
Yes, a demand increase without supply increase causes prices to rise.
In other news, water is wet.
The fact that people are arguing over this is astonishing to me. Politics morphing into the religion of modernity is the worst thing that has happened this century thus far.
[dead]
Undocumented immigrants "raised local house prices and rents without expanding housing supply" — obviously, since local governments of both parties hate anyone who doesn't already own and make it illegal to build more housing. Not an immigration problem, although obviously the Trump administration is trying to make it more expensive to build by deporting anyone brown regardless of whether or not they're lawfully present (or even a citizen), tariffs, and pretty much the entire scope of Project 2025.
[dead]
You know, if they'd said 5%, I would buy it. 30% is a lie on the face of it. No one single factor dies that much.
If I hadn't been hearing that the illegal immigrant population has remained unchanged at approximately 11 million _for decades_, I'd probably agree with you.
I think a lot of people are truly in denial about just how many illegal immigrants are in the country, and they all need housing.
Legal immigration also raise housing costs. And if we complain, we are labeled as racist.
Many (not all) of the people labeling this position as racist are themselves the immigrants. If you legally prevent someone from immigrating to your country, then the ability of the would-be immigrant to call you racist in a way that matters is severely curtailed (since they're not currently in your country, they might well not even be doing so in a language you speak).
Legal immigrants pay the same taxes you do. The real problem is NIMBY.
Government exists to serve the people not the other way around.
Canada housing costs are coming down since temporary immigration has been strongly curtailed.
Immigration cannot outpace housing supply without impacting housing costs for everyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/12/canada-migrati...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46304685 (citations)
I've said this a million times, there is no free lunch with using immigration to paper over population decline. One of the main problems has to do with housing. A baby will require their own separate housing in ~20 years. An immigrant needs it _today_. It's irrefutable that bringing in 100K immigrants, illegal or otherwise, in a year will strain the housing market more than 100K babies. We used to have a sustainable way of keeping pace with population growth.
Indeed, the rate of new housing construction in the US declined substantially after the 2008 GFC and never recovered. We are now experiencing the result of that. You can’t print housing stock. Immigration quota should be a function of housing costs and availability, otherwise you’re bidding up the cost of housing for everyone for gains for some.
Subsidize the housing if you must to ensure you have affordable housing for peak population before decline kicks in, as it will everywhere.