Ask yourself this: if they are paying their employees so well, where are they getting all that money?

The cause for wage growth stagnation isn't immigration. Immigration is a net positive for society. Emigration is the real harm. That much is settled in Economics.

The cause for wage growth is, perhaps, the offshoring of labor to cheaper economies. Better for Nike to pay minimum wage in China than in the US.

Meanwhile, capital gains remain domestic as business owners don't relocate

Supply and demand applies to jobs and workers as much as any other part of economics.

Immigration indeed lowers wages for competing workers, but it also increases wages for complementary workers and generates surplus to owners of capital – which in the long-term constitute a net gain to all of society, but at a minimum does constitute a net loss to workers at large.

Research suggests negative wage effects are concentrated among low-skilled workers.

Immigration can indeed have disruptive effects, but it can be managed, and its net gains for the whole of society are fairly well established.

In the example of immigrants doing hard manual labor, especially agricultural work, who are the complementary workers? I'd infer it's workers like the people who transport crops around or operate the machinery to plant / grow the crops, etc.

Is that close to the meaning you intended?

It is ultimately a race to the bottom when you have a globalized economy, but do not have standardized worker protections across said economy.

Immigration has plenty of benefits on society, and we should not use wage stagnation relative to productivity growth (which can be stopped) justify isolationism and protectionism. Whether we like it or not, we live in an increasingly globalized economy and we should fight to have broader labor protections and give more power to workers to be able to protect themselves and fight for fairer wages. The alternative is, as I previously stated, a race to the bottom.

If they are motivated by the desire to build, they would still build. If they are motivated by the desire to beat their peers in a game of "Who Has The Most Money," they would still compete. The winning number would just have fewer digits. If they are motivated by the power money buys, well, maybe the rest of us are better off not playing that game.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/07/08/chin...

Let's start at people who's net worth are > 1 billion then. That's 607 people in the USA. IMO worth it, considering their outsized political power.