Posted on 11/29/2016 12:07:18 PM PST by FewsOrange
The economic plight of low-skilled workers has received considerable attention during the presidential campaign. The problem is older than the primary season however, as the share of prime-age U.S. workers without a high school degree with jobs has been declining for decades. Yet at the same time, low-skilled immigrant men have been unaffected by this trend. While some commentators have attempted to blame the failure of native-born men to work on immigrants, the evidence points to other causes.
This post will expand on the lessons from Nicholas Eberstadt’s wonderful new book Men Without Work to give five reasons why low-skilled men who have immigrated to the United States tend to work more often than similarly educated men who were born here.
Figure 1 highlights the problem. For as far back as we have data, immigrant men without high school degrees in their prime years (25-54) have held jobs far more often than similar native-born men. Moreover, the gap in employment between the average low-skilled immigrant man and the similar native-born man is growing. In 1995, there was an 18 percentage point difference in the employment rates of the two groups. By 2014, the difference was 31 points.
Source: Census Current Population Survey March Supplement
1. Low-skilled immigrant men look for work. The single most important reason that immigrants perform better than lower-skilled natives is that they actually search for jobs in the labor market. As Figure 2 shows, more than 1 in 3 low-skilled native-born men in their primes are not even looking for jobs, compared to just 1 in 13 immigrant men. The gap is also growing. In 1995, there was a 17 percentage point difference between the share of low-skilled immigrant men and low-skilled native-born men who were out of the workforce entirely. By 2014, the difference had reached 25 points. It’s hard to get a job without first looking.
Source: Census Current Population Survey March Supplement
2. Low-skilled immigrants use less welfare. As a 2013 paper by the Cato Institute demonstrated, poor immigrants use significantly less welfare than poor native-born citizens. Moreover, as I have shown previously, immigrant labor force participation rates grew in response to the welfare reform that Congress passed in 1996. The 1996 law barred all noncitizens from welfare, except for legal permanent residents who had been in the country for more than five years. This incentivized them to seek jobs, and during this time, overall immigrant employment rates surpassed the native-born rates. This surge in employment caused their income to rise so much that their rates of poverty actually declined. Native-born men have faced much less pressure to reenter the labor market.
3. Low-skilled immigrant men commit far fewer crimes. Immigrant men are much less likely to be incarcerated than similar native-born men. Figure 3 provides the incarceration rates for native and foreign-born men ages 18 to 39, and in every Census year since 1980, the foreign-born rate is half or less than half the native-born rate. This is also true for high school dropouts from the top sending countries for unauthorized immigrants. Almost 1 in 9 native-born men ages 18 to 39 without a high school degree was incarcerated in 2010, compared to just 1 in 59 Mexican-born men. Criminal records and unemployment resulting from incarceration provide serious obstacles to the ability of native-born men to find employment.
Source: American Immigration Council
4. Low-skilled immigrant men are more likely to marry. For both immigrants and natives, married prime-age men are much more likely to work than never-married men (Figure 5). For immigrants, there was an almost 10 percentage point difference in employment rates between these two groups of men. Natives had nearly twice the gap. As Figure 6 shows, low-skilled immigrant men were nearly twice as likely to be married in 2014. The best theory is that married men are more motivated to work because they often need to provide for their families.
Source: Census Current Population Survey March Supplement (2014)
5. Native male workers are more likely to get educated. As I have previously explained, the greater share of natives who fail to graduate high school or obtain employment is explained entirely by the fact that working natives are much more likely to get educated today than in the past. In fact, as Figure 7 shows, the absolute number of native-born high school dropouts without work (purple line) has actually declined slightly since 1995, just not as quickly as the total population of dropouts has declined (red line). As native workers are leaving this population by getting educated, low-skilled immigrants are entering from abroad (blue line) and finding jobs much faster than others are leaving the workforce (green line).
Source: Census Current Population Survey March Supplement
Opponents of immigration note that several studies have found that low-skilled immigration causes small declines in wages for native-born high school dropouts. But all of the studies finding declines for low-skilled native wages have found substantially larger declines for low-skilled immigrant wages. If those small wage declines forced natives out of the workforce in large numbers then we should expect even larger declines in labor force participation rate for low-skilled immigrant workers. That we do not is telling. As Eberstadt notes:
No matter their race or educational status, married men raising a family work more, and never-married men without children or children in their home work less. No matter their ethnicity or race, prime-age men who come to this country work more than those here by birth. Neither a wedding nor a green card confers innate advantage in the competition for jobs. Rather, marriage and migration decisions point to motivations, aspirations, priorities, values, and other intangibles that do so much to explain real-world human achievements.
Government policies—such as reforming welfare programs and the criminal justice system—could help some of these native-born Americans to reenter the labor force. But the main reason that low-skilled immigrant men work more often than other low-skilled men is that these immigrants have made better personal decisions. They seek out work and commit fewer crimes. They start and provide for their families. They make these decisions despite facing stiffer competition for jobs from newer immigrants and lacking the language proficiency of native workers—the most important hurdle to employment in the United States.
In other words, immigrants don’t just provide important economic benefits by preventing the U.S. labor force from declining—they are also bringing with them many important cultural benefits that the United States desperately needs. Punishing these immigrant workers will not aid struggling native-born workers—it will only hurt them and the economy as a whole.
This post will expand on the lessons from Nicholas Eberstadt’s wonderful new book Men Without Work to give five reasons why low-skilled men who have immigrated to the United States tend to work more often than similarly educated men who were born here.
Figure 1 highlights the problem. For as far back as we have data, immigrant men without high school degrees in their prime years (25-54) have held jobs far more often than similar native-born men. Moreover, the gap in employment between the average low-skilled immigrant man and the similar native-born man is growing. In 1995, there was an 18 percentage point difference in the employment rates of the two groups. By 2014, the difference was 31 points.
1. Low-skilled immigrant men look for work. The single most important reason that immigrants perform better than lower-skilled natives is that they actually search for jobs in the labor market. As Figure 2 shows, more than 1 in 3 low-skilled native-born men in their primes are not even looking for jobs, compared to just 1 in 13 immigrant men. The gap is also growing. In 1995, there was a 17 percentage point difference between the share of low-skilled immigrant men and low-skilled native-born men who were out of the workforce entirely. By 2014, the difference had reached 25 points. It’s hard to get a job without first looking.
2. Low-skilled immigrants use less welfare. As a 2013 paper by the Cato Institute demonstrated, poor immigrants use significantly less welfare than poor native-born citizens. Moreover, as I have shown previously, immigrant labor force participation rates grew in response to the welfare reform that Congress passed in 1996. The 1996 law barred all noncitizens from welfare, except for legal permanent residents who had been in the country for more than five years. This incentivized them to seek jobs, and during this time, overall immigrant employment rates surpassed the native-born rates. This surge in employment caused their income to rise so much that their rates of poverty actually declined. Native-born men have faced much less pressure to reenter the labor market.
3. Low-skilled immigrant men commit far fewer crimes. Immigrant men are much less likely to be incarcerated than similar native-born men. Figure 3 provides the incarceration rates for native and foreign-born men ages 18 to 39, and in every Census year since 1980, the foreign-born rate is half or less than half the native-born rate. This is also true for high school dropouts from the top sending countries for unauthorized immigrants. Almost 1 in 9 native-born men ages 18 to 39 without a high school degree was incarcerated in 2010, compared to just 1 in 59 Mexican-born men. Criminal records and unemployment resulting from incarceration provide serious obstacles to the ability of native-born men to find employment.
4. Low-skilled immigrant men are more likely to marry. For both immigrants and natives, married prime-age men are much more likely to work than never-married men (Figure 5). For immigrants, there was an almost 10 percentage point difference in employment rates between these two groups of men. Natives had nearly twice the gap. As Figure 6 shows, low-skilled immigrant men were nearly twice as likely to be married in 2014. The best theory is that married men are more motivated to work because they often need to provide for their families.
5. Native male workers are more likely to get educated. As I have previously explained, the greater share of natives who fail to graduate high school or obtain employment is explained entirely by the fact that working natives are much more likely to get educated today than in the past. In fact, as Figure 7 shows, the absolute number of native-born high school dropouts without work (purple line) has actually declined slightly since 1995, just not as quickly as the total population of dropouts has declined (red line). As native workers are leaving this population by getting educated, low-skilled immigrants are entering from abroad (blue line) and finding jobs much faster than others are leaving the workforce (green line).
Opponents of immigration note that several studies have found that low-skilled immigration causes small declines in wages for native-born high school dropouts. But all of the studies finding declines for low-skilled native wages have found substantially larger declines for low-skilled immigrant wages. If those small wage declines forced natives out of the workforce in large numbers then we should expect even larger declines in labor force participation rate for low-skilled immigrant workers. That we do not is telling. As Eberstadt notes:
"No matter their race or educational status, married men raising a family work more, and never-married men without children or children in their home work less. No matter their ethnicity or race, prime-age men who come to this country work more than those here by birth. Neither a wedding nor a green card confers innate advantage in the competition for jobs. Rather, marriage and migration decisions point to motivations, aspirations, priorities, values, and other intangibles that do so much to explain real-world human achievements."
Government policies—such as reforming welfare programs and the criminal justice system—could help some of these native-born Americans to reenter the labor force. But the main reason that low-skilled immigrant men work more often than other low-skilled men is that these immigrants have made better personal decisions. They seek out work and commit fewer crimes. They start and provide for their families. They make these decisions despite facing stiffer competition for jobs from newer immigrants and lacking the language proficiency of native workers—the most important hurdle to employment in the United States.
In other words, immigrants don’t just provide important economic benefits by preventing the U.S. labor force from declining—they are also bringing with them many important cultural benefits that the United States desperately needs. Punishing these immigrant workers will not aid struggling native-born workers—it will only hurt them and the economy as a whole.
Immigrants qualify for more welfare than natives because immigrants are having more children. Single guy living in parent’s basement - less welfare. Immigrant guy with wife and three children back home, plus girlfriend and three children here, bother works harder and is eligible for welfare.
Solution is to cut way back on welfare. This would motivate natives on welfare to work, and discourage immigrants from having more children than they can afford.
You will have to be more specific. What are you comparing to what?
“I’ve spent a decent amount of time around Mexican workers of undetermined status. I know some are legal and suspect most are not.
These guys work and work hard.”
We had our house re-roofed a couple of years ago by a large, local company that does nothing but commercial and residential roofing. This company pays well, including health benefits, and only hires people who have green cards. Definitely not a fly-by-night operation.
The entire crew, except the supervisor, was Latino. They worked their @$$e$ off from 7:00 am until dusk for two days. After the job was completed, I asked the supervisor why all of his workers were Latino. He said that few native-born Americans (white or black) apply and the ones they have hired in the past either don’t show up for work reliably or, when they do show up, don’t work hard.
Immigrants are using more welfare, single or not. And it depends on where they come from.
Solution is to cut way back on welfare. This would motivate natives on welfare to work, and discourage immigrants from having more children than they can afford.
How about bringing in fewer immigrants so more Americans can have jobs and higher wages? This would cause the welfare rolls to go down.
For example, you compared the out-of-wedlock birthrate of Hispanic immigrants (over 50%) with that of all native-born Americans. The out-of-wedlock birthrate of African-Americans is over 70%. Here is a link to such birthrates by race/ethnicity:
They can also send the money to Mexico and live like kings when/if they go back. Building homes, opening businesses ect.
So what? The Hispanic out of wedlock birthrate is 53%, second only to blacks. Non-Hispanic whites have a 29% rate. Both of the latter are still too high.
Your comments ring true. I’ve got a buddy who is a renovation contractor.
His best employee is my son who worked for him the last two summers. He just got an internship which should last him the next year and a half of college. My friend is bummed out. He told me he has one guy who thinks he can show up when he wants and still work till four. He’s lucky to get six hours a day out of him, but he can’t fire him till he finds someone to take his place.
My kid was great. he said that if he told him how to do something he could walk away and it would be done. If ho told him the right way, it would be correct, if he told him the wrong way, it would be wrong. Contrast that to some of his other guys who would shortcut everything and most of what they did had to be adjusted.
I’d love to go to home depot and bring home a couple worker bee’s to do some stuff here, but I can’t bring myself to do it.
CATO a big fan of school choice
For later.
While I don’t doubt that there’s featherbedding, and lazy workers amongst (unionized) municipal construction workers — that doesn’t apply to most construction labourers, most of the time.
During h.s., I worked construction jobs in summer; so, I know a bit about it. If you can pump iron non-stop, for 8 or 10 hours a day; then feel free to criticize the construction labourer you see on your morning commute.
It was sarcasm. I think Americana generally work a lot harder than most foreigners. Of course, we have a discouraged underclass that is happy on public benefits, but working Americans are working hard and accompishing a lot.
I know that it’s a “meme” — there must be thousands of cartoons featuring the construction worker resting on his shovel. On reflection, I shouldn’t have been so snippy with you. Apparently, you just pushed one of my buttons. Or, to put it in today’s college lingo: you should have given me a trigger warning. Where’s my safe space??
I should add: I agree with the substantive points you’re making.
My son’s first day on his most recent job resulted in a call to me at lunchtime. He did not know he had to pack lunch and he was 380 feet up on a scaffold inside a power plant cooling tower. He was bored and ready to get back to work but required to stop for 1/2 hour due to work rules.
I should add: he was building the scaffold - no elevator.
re: Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, use the welfare system to a far greater degree than the native born.
This depends on how each side lies with statistics. Most Hispanics are low income and qualify for welfare programs. Most Native born have income too high to qualify for those programs.
If you look at low income Hispanics compared to low income non-Hispanics then Hispanics have a lower rate of participation. Since low income Puerto Ricans and Cubans have a much higher rate than non-Hispanics, it works out that those of Mexican ancestry who qualify for programs have the lowest rate of participation of any demographic group.
These are the UNDER-SERVED. Underserved is the code word used to refer to people who DESERVE benefits but don’t apply for them.
For example, pre-Obamacare many people who qualified for Medicaid were not on Medicaid. They were the uninsured the media trotted out. Obamacare created navigators who signed up people for Medicaid, whether they liked it or not. The result is a drastic reduction in the un-insured, not via the new features of Obamacare but due to enforcement of old features.
That decrease in uninsured was in the non-Hispanic population. An extremely high percentage of Hispanics still qualify for Medicaid and are not on it.
Every January the news media reports states with high infant mortality, a major measure of a civilized society. Every January pro-Medicaid expansion voices use infant mortality statistics to push for Medicaid Expansion and more Medicaid Outreach. They especially push for outreach to the UNDER-SERVED... the Hispanics. Navigators are wringing their hands at conferences over how to reach the under-served who just won’t cooperate.
But guess what, low-income not on Medicaid have a far lower infant mortality rate than those of the same income who are on Medicaid, especially Hispanics popping babies.
Obamacare also provided for Medicaid Expansion. Most states have not expanded Medicaid. So there remains a large number of states that never had an aggressive navigator program. In those states, Hispanics, especially of Mexican ancestry stand out as rejecting welfare.
I’m much more familiar with Medicaid data than TANF or Food Stamp data. But I shop equally at Walmart and at a Mexican SuperMercado.
At Walmart, I see the vast majority of customers are non-Hispanic Natural Born Citizens. 9 out of 10 pay with EBT cards. They are dressed in expensive clothing; they have expensive cars; they are buying expensive non-essentials as well as the most expensive types of processed food, frozen dinners, etc.
At SuperMercado only 1 out of 10 pays with EBT. Their shopping carts are filled with fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh meat. The 40,000 sq ft SuperMercado does not even have a frozen food section except for Ice Cream.
That Hispanics eat fresh and not highly processed food is the major reason they have a low infant mortality rate. The big mistake of Obamacare is based on the premise that good health comes from good medical insurance coverage. That is not true. Good health comes from good lifestyle.
Incidentally, as Hispanics become Americanized and less Hispanic, the above becomes less true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.