This article is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. Firstly for the last 40+ years the growth of wages stagnated when at the same time productivity per hour was rising at roughly the same levels like it was before. Where did all the surplus capital go? Simple: the fact that the wealth of the top 0.1% grew much faster than that of the bottom 99.9% is well established. As the article correctly mentions this was achieved with two major supply shocks. One is women entering the workforce and the other is mass immigration. But none of them made "America richer", only very few Americans.
The reality is that immigration is not only a zero-sum it is much worse than that. Keeping labor cost artificially low will lead to stagnating technology. The industrial revolution could only happen because the wages in England were (for many unrelated reasons) really high and even though the principles of the steam engine were known since the year 200 (!) for the first time it was economically feasible to use the technology to replace workers. And thus the new era of technology was born. There will be no technological advancement without labor shortage. Labor shortages are good for everyone.
The reality is that immigration is not only a zero-sum it is much worse than that. Keeping labor cost artificially low will lead to stagnating technology. The industrial revolution could only happen because the wages in England were (for many unrelated reasons) really high and even though the principles of the steam engine were known since the year 200 (!) for the first time it was economically feasible to use the technology to replace workers. And thus the new era of technology was born. There will be no technological advancement without labor shortage. Labor shortages are good for everyone.