Aidan,

Let's suppose that there were really bad industrial relations laws but that illegal immigration wasn't tolerated and that legal immigration was low, near zero net. Market forces would guarantee that workers could capture a larger share of the benefits from rising productivity. You could try exploiting your workers, but there would be plenty of other jobs out there. No one would work for you. In the 1950s, the social classes in the US benefited more or less equally from economic growth. Or you might look at how wages rose after the Black Death killed off around a third of the population of Europe

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/

King Edward III in England tried to stop workers from demanding higher wages and going elsewhere in search of better jobs. It didn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers_1351

This situation is much like how the price of bananas went up to $13 a kilo after Cyclone Larry wiped out 80-90% of our banana crop in 2006.

Even good laws will be circumvented if there are enough desperate people. Just think of those 7-11 franchisees demanding that their workers hand back half their pay out of sight of the security cameras.

Of course I don't blame the immigrants. I blame the politicians and their Big Business mates for creating this situation. Nor do I suppose that immigration is the only way that the elite oppress ordinary people. See Dean Baker's book "The End of Loser Liberalism" (available as a free ebook) for plenty more.

Divergence,

"You could try exploiting your workers, but there would be plenty of other jobs out there."

And that's the key. If the number of jobs out there were fixed, the immigration rate would be one of the main factors determining wages. But the number of jobs is not fixed - it depends on how expansionary or contractionary the combination of fiscal policy and monetary policy the government runs is.

Aidan,

There clearly aren't enough jobs. The ABS uses a ridiculously restrictive definition of unemployment. Roy Morgan Research just asks people if they are unemployed and, if they have part-time jobs, whether they want more work. As of last December, 9.7% of our working age population was unemployed and 11% were underemployed. Now tell me why we need more workers.

http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/underemployment-estimates

You are like the US libertarians who say that everything would be fine with open borders if we could get rid of the welfare state. You create the jobs first, and then we can talk about more people, although there are other reasons for not wanting a bigger population.

Divergence,

"There clearly aren't enough jobs. The ABS uses a ridiculously restrictive definition of unemployment."
I agree completely. But regardless of our immigration intake, it is a very easy problem to solve: the government just needs to abandon its stupid pursuit of a budgetary surplus and start investing in our future instead.

"You are like the US libertarians who say that everything would be fine with open borders if we could get rid of the welfare state."
Except that I oppose getting rid of the welfare state.

TRUMP WINS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 2016.

Wednesday February 10, 2016 first Australian episode of “The Good Wife” showed the Democratic Party candidate for the president of the US, selection process.
On the day of the caucus selection process, candidate Peter Florrick had to eat a loose meat sandwich at every Iowa district stop over. Peter Florrick was seen in the media spitting out his loose meat sandwich.
By the time candidate Peter Florrick office staff turned up on the caucus floor, old style Athenian democracy. A gathering of neighbours trying to convince each other to join their candidate. Peter Florrick minimum of 30 promised supporters were not anywhere near “Peter Florrick for president” sign. So easy it takes for promised supporters to desert presidential candidates, shows a simplistic voters intelligence. Peter Florrick supporters went over to join Hillary Clinton supporters before the contest even started.

Eventually Peter Florrick won that particular district after a paid supporter walked into the hall, singing to the tune of the US anthem, including Peter Florrick's name into the song. The not very intelligent Iowa caucus voters following the man in the location of Peter Florrick's sign.

The theory is as low numbered voter candidate groups are knocked out, remaining groups convince knocked out voters into joining remaining groups until a winner has been found.

Sounds easy to rig, leaving selection processes to small numbers of people. Iowa has a state population of three million. As to why Iowa has first choice, beginning the influencing process of following candidates. All seems more of a popularity entertainment contest.

At roughly the same time, the 2012 movie “The Campaign” was shown. The movie is funny to me because voters intelligence were being influenced to believe democracy was real. Tactics candidates used to increase polling voters votes towards candidates names, fell within dumb to doubt it will work very dumb, finding that very dumb works as well.
The wealthy men financing candidates so they may sell US property to Chinese business men, high lights corrupt corporate Tammany Hall Boss Tweed blame politicians democracy.