[[email protected]]

((Tables deleted for space. See link-Bret.))

VDAWDI Vindicated—Immigration Hitting American Workers Hard

By Peter Brimelow and Edwin S. Rubenstein

"So gargantuan is America’s post-1965 immigration disaster that there is now an immigration dimension to every public issue. Nowhere is this more so than in employment—and nowhere is the phenomenon more pressing, given that unemployment has now reached a level (8.5 percent) not seen since 1983—and is projected to reach double digits by year end.



As usual, the federal government’s statistics on immigration’s impact
of on employment are so fragmentary that it almost appears someone
doesn’t want to know. Specifically, it does not release monthly data
on immigrant vs. native-born American employment.



Because of this malfeasance, in 2004 we unveiled our proprietary
effort to track American worker displacement: the VDARE.com American
Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI). We tracked monthly growth of
Hispanic versus non-Hispanic employment, expressing both as an index
number of 100 as of the start of the Bush Administration in January
2001. We used Hispanics as a proxy for immigrant employment because
such a high fraction of working age Hispancs (54 percent) a are
immigrants.


VDAWDI rose dramatically from January 2001 to late 2007, when it
reached 124.1.. Then it stalled and finally declined when employment
collapsed in late 2008.



But despite the recent decline, Hispanic (= immigrant) employment is
still (as of March 2009) up a whopping 22 percent. In contrast, non-
Hispanic (= American) employment was actually lower than it was at the
start of the Bush administration.



Once a year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does release data on
immigrant employment. It did so on March 26th of this year.

In general, this foreign-born employment data confirm our long-
standing estimates of American Worker Displacement. If anything, we
were too conservative. Specifically, in 2008, immigrant employment
was, on average, 33.7% higher than in 2000, whereas native-born
employment was only 3.8% higher. This compares to VDAWDI’s figures: a
22 percent gain for immigrants versus a slight decline for natives
from January 2001 to March 2009.


Table



Source: BLS, "Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics in
2008," News Release, March 26, 2009. (2007, 2008) PDF

Unpublished BLS data. (2000-2006)



(Foreign-born workers include legal immigrants, illegal aliens,
refugees, and workers here on temporary work visas. These are annual
averages, and only partially reflect the economic meltdown that
started in late 2008.)



The unemployment rate for immigrants had been below that of natives
since 2005. But it reached parity in 2008, when 5.8 percent of both
groups were unemployed. Interestingly, for Hispanic immigrants
unemployment was 6.9 percent in 2008, up from 4.9 percent the prior
year.



In 2008, the number of foreign-born persons employed in the U.S. fell
by 307,000, or by 1.3 percent. This was the first such decline since
BLS employment surveys started collecting information on nativity in
1996.



In 2008, native-born employment fell by 0.3 percent in 2008, or less
than one-quarter the decline in immigrant employment. This is a sharp
break from the recent past, when the growth rate of jobs held by
immigrants was many times greater than growth in jobs held by native-
born workers. (Table 2.)



Equally remarkable is the fact that Hispanic immigrants accounted for
all of last year’s decline: their employment fell by 338,000, or 3.0
percent. In contrast, employment of non-Hispanic immigrants rose by
31,000, or 0.3 percent. Perhaps this is because Hispanics are
disproportionately lower skilled, and more vulnerable.

Immigrants accounted for 15.6 percent of total employment in 2008,
down slightly from 15.7 percent in 2007. Lest we forget: as recently
as 2000 only 12.5 percent of U.S. workers were foreign born.

But incredibly, despite hard economic times in the U.S., the just-
released Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the influx of job
seekers from abroad continues.



The foreign-born population of working age (16-years and older) grew
by 300,000 in 2008, to a record 35.3 million. That’s below the million-
plus inflows recorded in the previous two years. But still, in
percentage terms the immigrant population of working age grew slightly
faster than its U.S.-born counterpart—0.9 percent versus 0.8 percent,
respectively, in 2008. [See Table 2.]




Source: BLS, "Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics in
2008," News Release, March 26, 2009. (Similar reports for earlier
years.)[PDF]


Of particular interest: in 2008, non-Hispanic immigrants accounted for
all the working age population growth. The Hispanic immigrant
population was virtually unchanged. This is again consistent with
reports stating that while the illegal alien invasion has slowed,
those already here do not appear to be returning home en masse.
[Illegal Immigrants Stay In U.S. Despite Recession, By Cam Simpson,
WSJ, January 14, 2009]

The long-term prognosis for the U.S. labor force is not materially
affected by the recent reversals in immigrant employment. Should
immigrant and native job growth continue at the pace of 2000-2008, the
immigrant share of U.S. employment will approach an incredible 50
percent by mid-century. Remember, this does include their native-born
children. Pre-1965 stock Americans will be really squeezed:

U.S. Employment by Nativity, 2000-2050


Immigrants remain a large and rapidly growing share of workers lacking
basic educational skills. In 2008 48 percent of all adult workers with
less than a High School diploma were foreign born. From 2000 to 2008
the number of immigrant high school dropouts rose by 29 percent. And
this probably underestimates the true dropout rate for immigrants,
because many are counted as high school graduates if they completed
school in their country of origin—regardless of the local standards.

In contrast, the number of native born dropouts shrank by 19.7
percent. Basically, government policy is undoing efforts to educate
the American population,

Yet the unemployment rate for foreign born dropouts in 2008 was 7.7
percent—considerably below the 10.1 percent rate for U.S.-born
dropouts.

Talk about displacement! Of course, high school dropouts are not
typically Wall Street Journal readers. So they don’t count.

In fact, the immigrant workforce is increasingly bi-modal, i.e.,
overrepresented at the top, as well as the bottom, of the educational
spectrum. From 2000 to 2008 the number of immigrants with a bachelor’s
degree or better grew by 50.1 percent versus 20 percent growth in U.S.-
born degree holders over the same period.

It’s trendy, and apparently politically acceptable, to blame
outsourcing for the nagging unemployment problem among college-
educated Americans. A frequently cited study by economic consultants
Forrester Research [November 11, 2002] says 3.3 million white-collar
jobs will be lost to foreign outsourcing in the next 12 years. That’s
an average of 275,000 jobs lost per year.

But in 2008 alone 222,000 foreign-born college graduates (FBCGs)
entered the labor force. Since 2000 we’ve absorbed 2.4 million FBCGs.
The influx must inevitably displace Americans in the short run,
whatever its long-term benefits. And it shows no sign of reversing
despite the recession.

Unemployment isn’t the entire story. There is also underemployment—as
reflected in falling real wages of displaced native-born workers.
Displaced natives may find work in other fields, but usually at far
lower pay levels. The negative effect occurs regardless of whether the
immigrant workers are legal or illegal, temporary or permanent,
educated or uneducated.

Harvard economist George Borjas finds that immigration reduces the
average wages of native born high school dropouts by 7.4 percent.
Native born college graduates suffered a 3.6 percent loss in wage due
to competition from immigrants with similar levels of education.
[Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration Measuring the
Impact on Native-born Workers May 2004]

Borjas’ estimates are based on immigration through the year 2000.
Today (2008) the foreign-born share of dropouts is 32 percent higher,
and the college-educated share is larger by 21 percent.

America’s immigration disaster is really coming home to roost in the
recession. But you will only read about it here on VDARE.COM."

http://www.vdare.com/pb/090423_vdawdi.htm