The spreadsheet that you linked to contains many figures for February 2019.
I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to. As of now, the latest figures show wages are higher than ten years ago.
I get it's inconvenient for those trying to show the the cost of living has impacted low skilled wages more than immigration. But as of the latest figures available, immigration has had a much bigger impact.
They don’t show that at all. They show that real wages have risen. That doesn’t mean that the cost of living hasn’t had a very significant (i.e., bigger) impact.
Average wages (not inflation adjusted) have increased from £418/pw to £529/pw. That’s a 27% increase. Normalised real wages have increased from 99.5/pw to 102.3/pw. That’s only a 2.8% increase. So what’s happened to the other 24.2% (= 27% - 2.8%)? That’s what’s been lost due to cost of living increases. That’s £6.7k a year on average lost to inflation.
You should perhaps try and understand what real wages are.
The £6.7k lost due to inflation was less than the rise in wages.
So the cost of living hasn't been a loss at all.
Whereas low skilled workers are still nigh on £500 per year worse off due to immigration.
Not really. Suppose you had a pay increase and the government took 90% of the extra money from you. You wouldn’t say you hadn’t lost anything, would you?
We’ve had this before, I think. For whatever reason you don’t accept the idea of a loss relative to some other potential outcome (i.e., how things would/could have been). But that’s exactly what these reports (e.g., the BoE report) consider.
I don’t think you can really say that at this point.
For one thing, you haven’t even considered the effects of taxes and benefits yet. If someone’s earnings drop by £X, it doesn’t automatically follow that their income drops by the same amount.
For another, you’re unwittingly doing the very thing you seem to object to (see the paragraph in italics above).
Well when I do have a payrise the government will take 40% off me. It's still a payrise. And I'd still consider it to be a payrise of X and not X-40%.
And it's still true that the cost of living hasn't lost people any money, using your own figures.
Whereas immigration has.
Inconvenient I know but still true.
How do you know what would/could have been?.
You can guess but that doesnt mean that would have come to fruition.
You’ve misinterpreted the BoE report. The 2% pay reduction isn’t what you think it is.
Oh do please elaborate on how I've misunderstood this (from the source report conclusion).
Closer examination reveals that the biggest effect is in the semi/unskilled services sector, where a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a 2 percent reduction in pay.
So it's not a reduction in the average pay in those occupations and regions?
Not necessarily. It depends on what you understand this reduction to mean. I think that’s where you’ve got it wrong.
So still no explanation of how I've got it wrong.
Very useful.