Despite poor jobs numbers, employment of Hispanics is rising.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Artful D0dger, May 7, 2011.

  1. National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein

    April Jobs: Behind Mixed Headlines, A Blow For Americans

    Just-released data [PDF] from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the unemployment rate, based on the Household Survey, moved up to nine percent from 8.8 percent in April.

    But the Payroll (which BLS calls the business “Establishment”) Survey showed that employers added 244,000 jobs in April, with the gain in private sector jobs the strongest in five years.

    Two numbers; two contradictory trends.

    Not surprisingly, the MainStream Media focused on the Payroll Survey, based on a survey of employers and is considered by official Washington to be a more reliable month-to-month indicator. It shows employers are hiring, despite slower income growth and higher gas prices.

    But, as I pointed out on in 2004 (!!!), this probably does not capture the employment of illegal aliens, whereas the Household Survey probably does.

    And, even so, April’s unemployment rate is troubling. When times are good, the unemployment rate often goes up because, as confidence grows, people resume their job search. But in this case, unemployment rose not because people without jobs decided to start looking for one—but because fewer people reported having a job.

    Total employment fell by 190,000 in April according to the Household Survey. Non-Hispanics bore the full brunt:

    Total employment: down 190,000 (-0.14 percent)

    Hispanic employment: up 5,000 (+0.02 percent)

    Non-Hispanic employment: down 195,000 (-0.16 percent)

    Since the official end of the recession in June 2009 non-Hispanics have lost 865,000 jobs while Hispanics have gained 501,000 positions.

    Hispanic employment is, of course, our proxy for our primary interest: foreign-born workers and their role in displacing their native-born counterparts.

    We used this proxy because the Federal Government was not then releasing monthly data on foreign-born employment. It released it only yearly. We found that VDAWDI was a good, even conservative, proxy.

    After January 2010, however, BLS, mysteriously, has begun to emit figures for foreign-born vs. native-born employment.

    Unfortunately, these data are not seasonally adjusted. This makes month to month trends very difficult to interpret.

    BLS attempts to resolve this dilemma by comparing the current month with the same month of the prior year:

    By this measure, April 2011 was the first month since BLS started publishing the data that natives-born Americans appear to be gaining jobs while immigrants are losing them—year over year. But our experience with VDAWDI suggests that this may be statistical noise. And the long-run trend is the same as VDAWDI: Americans are being displaced by immigrants.

    Plus VDAWDI still means that Hispanics are gaining at the expense of others.

    We hope to address these issues soon.

    Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.
  2. Yes, not taking from the welfare. You are not happy for this?

    "Also, even as immigrants have managed to gain jobs in the recovery, they have experienced a sharp decline in earnings. From 2009 to 2010, the median weekly earnings of foreign-born workers decreased 4.5%, compared with a loss of less than one percent for native-born workers. Latino immigrants experienced the largest drop in wages of all.5 It might be that in the search for jobs in the recovery, immigrants were more accepting of lower wages and reduced hours because many, especially unauthorized immigrants, are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

    The reasons that only foreign-born workers have gained jobs in the recovery are not entirely clear. One factor might be greater flexibility on the part of immigrants. Research suggests that immigrants are more mobile than native-born workers, moving more fluidly across regions, industries and occupations. But the flip side of flexibility can be instability. Unpublished research by the Pew Hispanic Center finds that immigrants are more likely to exit from and enter into employment on a month-to-month basis.

    Another reason that immigrants are displaying greater success at the start of the recovery might simply be that their employment patterns are more volatile over the business cycle. This means that immigrants register sharper losses in the early stages of recessions but rebound quicker in the recovery. That pattern played out in the 2001 recession and recovery,7 and it may be repeating now -- there is evidence that immigrants took a harder hit than native-born workers during the Great Recession.8 Whether or not the initial lead in jobs recovery taken by immigrants sustains itself remains to be seen, given the tenuous nature of the overall rebound from the Great Recession."


    Other main findings of this report include:

    Foreign Born and Native born

    ¡The foreign-born working-age population (ages 16 and older) in the U.S. increased by 709,000 from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010. That marks a reversal from the preceding year, when the foreign-born working-age population shrank by 95,000.


    ¡Employment among Hispanics increased by 392,000 from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010. All of the gains accrued to foreign-born Hispanics -- their employment increased by 435,000.
    ¡The unemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics decreased from 11.0% in the second quarter of 2009 to 10.1% in the second quarter of 2010. At the same time, the unemployment rate for native-born Hispanics increased from 12.9% to 14.0%.
    ¡Among non-Hispanics, foreign-born workers gained 220,000 jobs but native-born workers lost 1.2 million jobs from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010. The unemployment rate for foreign-born non-Hispanics fell from 7.6% to 7.4%; for native-born non-Hispanics, it increased from 8.9% to 9.3%.

    ¡Non-Hispanic whites lost 986,000 jobs from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, and their unemployment rate increased from 7.7% to 8.0%. The losses were experienced only by native-born whites; immigrants gained 214,000 jobs and reduced their unemployment rate from 7.0% to 6.3%.

    ¡Employment for native-born blacks decreased by 142,000 in the first year of the recovery and increased by 81,000 for foreign-born blacks. The unemployment rate for native-born blacks increased from 15.4% to 16.3%; for immigrant blacks, it decreased from 11.4% to 10.7%.


    ¡Asians had a different experience -- employment of the native born increased by 208,000 from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, and employment of immigrants decreased by 102,000. The unemployment rate for native-born Asians fell from 9.9% to 8.7%; for foreign-born Asians, it increased from 6.7% to 7.0%.

    ¡The construction sector was a leading source of job losses in the recession, and it remains a leading source of unemployment for native-born workers during the recovery. Of the 1.2 million jobs lost by native-born workers from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, 645,000 jobs were lost in construction alone.
    ¡Foreign-born Hispanics began to reverse their job losses in construction. After losing 335,000 jobs from the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, immigrant Hispanics gained 98,000 construction jobs from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010.
    ¡The eating, drinking and lodging services sector lost 501,000 jobs in the first year of the recovery, almost as many as construction. Job gains were strongest in hospitals and other health services and public administration.

    ¡Median weekly earnings of both native-born and foreign-born workers inched up 1.0% from 2008 to 2009 -- from $651 to $657 for the native born and from $544 to $550 for immigrants, in 2010 prices.
    ¡In the recovery from 2009 to 2010, median weekly wages of foreign-born workers fell to $525, a loss of 4.5%. The wages of native-born workers were virtually unchanged, standing at $653 in the second quarter of 2010.
    ¡Hispanic immigrants have experienced the greatest loss in wages. Their median weekly wage decreased 1.3% from 2008 to 2009 and then an additional 5.8% from 2009 to 2010.
  3. maxpi


    Mexicans have a cool way of living.. fifty of them rent a house, they need so little income to live on and they don't give a rat's ass that much if they get fired... but they can work very hard. Americans grow up on television and frozen pies and they can't work that hard... so Mexicans work cheap and they work hard and they can have an attitude while they are doing it too, that keeps them happy... and Mexican Men are a lot happier than Americans because they are not married to White American women that hate men and love it that they can abort their own offspring... Considering the important things [women, food, attitude, family] I'd say Mexicans live at a higher and better level than most Whites... they are smart enough to not try to show it, if you show it, people will ruin things for you.. better to play the underdog and tap that welfare system from time to time too...

    fifty white women could not share a house, they can't even share it with their husbands very well...

    I found a region that has women that are even way better than Mexicans but I'm not sharing... all you guys that are hooking up with AmBitches.. wow, are you missing out on a real life or what........
  4. Immigrants, especially the illegal type, try much harder at finding jobs than US-born citizens. [​IMG]
  5. If we got rid of them, then employers would have to try much harder to attract employees (raise wages, etc). It would also create 30 million jobs which would be left open for legal Americans.

  6. The "real" unemployment rate (u6) is 15.9%, not the 9% that the government would like you to believe.

    Definition: The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over