Median Income Drops Are Tied to Immigrants

The New York Times ^ | December 22, 2001 | STEVEN GREENHOUSE

[sarcasm]

edian household income dropped between 1989 and 1998 in Queens, Brooklyn, Suffolk, Fairfield and many other counties across the nation that experienced a large influx of immigrants, according to new census data.

The data indicate that even as the economy in the New York region and the nation rebounded after the recession of the early 90's, figures for median household income, adjusted for inflation, failed to climb in many counties because of the increase in low-income immigrant workers.

The new data show that in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx — counties with a major increase of immigrants — median income fell sharply. More surprising, though, was the marked income drop in some of the region's wealthiest suburbs, including Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties in New York and Fairfield County in Connecticut.

"Immigrants are jumping immediately into these inner-ring suburbs, which is a change from the past 300 years, when the first generation lived in inner-city neighborhoods," said Robert D. Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association, a civic group that works to improve the economy of the New York region. "This new phenomenon is reducing household incomes in some of the well-to-do suburbs as immigrants move into Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk. It's consistent with the national phenomenon of the suburbanization of poverty."

The new data show that median income also fell in many counties in other states attractive to immigrants, including Los Angeles County and Miami-Dade County.

In Queens, according to the data, the median household income fell to $36,480 in 1998 from $44,938 in 1989, a drop of nearly 19 percent, while in Brooklyn it fell by 18 percent, to $27,556 from $33,762.

In Los Angeles County, where there has been a surge of immigrants from Mexico, median income fell in constant dollars to $37,655 in 1998 from $45,962, a decline of 18 percent, according to the census data.

Andrew A. Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College, prepared the analysis that compared the Census Bureau's median income estimates for 1989 and 1998.

Many economists view the median as the best figure for assessing income trends since half the incomes are above it and half below.

Several economists and sociologists, however, argued that the new census data exaggerated the income drop from 1989 to 1998. They said that although median household income might have fallen in many counties, it did not fall as much as the new data suggested.

These economists questioned the new computer model developed by the Census Bureau, and they noted that there was a higher margin of error in analyzing small areas like counties. In addition, critics argued that the way inflation was adjusted might have exaggerated the drop in median income.

Stephen Kagann, chief economist for Gov. George E. Pataki, said the estimated declines were not credible.

"They use an inappropriate starting point, 1989, which was a cyclical peak, thereby ignoring the deep recession that occurred afterwards," Mr. Kagann said. "And they use an inappropriate inflation adjustment that overestimates inflation and thereby underestimates the growth in income."

He said that if the analysis had taken 1993 as its starting point, when New York's economy was near the bottom, the study would have shown a 7.9 percent increase in median household income statewide.

Jared Bernstein, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute, also said that the new census data painted too gloomy a picture. Pointing to another census study, from last March, he noted that median household income for New York State dropped by 7 percent from 1989 to 1998. He added that a 5 percent increase in income in the two boom years, 1999 and 2000, meant a decline of just 2 percent from 1989 to 2000.

Still, he saw economic problems in the state. "In New York, you've had an amplified version of the expanded income gap we've seen nationally," he said. "Folks in the high end — in law, high tech, financial markets — were in a good place to ride the boom. Meanwhile, the huge supply of low-wage workers who were serving these upper-end workers during the boom didn't do nearly as well."

Mr. Beveridge's analysis estimated that median income in Nassau County fell by 14 percent ($61,096 in 1998 from $71,202 in 1989), 16 percent in Suffolk ($54,008 from $64,580), 11 percent in Westchester ($56,865 from $63,629), 12 percent in Fairfield ($57,389 from 65,583), 12 percent in Hudson County ($35,743 from $40,641), 17 percent in Passaic County ($40,923 from $49,421) and by 10 percent in Essex County ($40,595 from $45,375).

While critics derided the numbers, Mr. Beveridge defended them, saying the arrival of immigrants in Bridgeport, Yonkers, Paterson, Hempstead and other communities could have caused a double-digit decrease in income.

In the preponderance of counties nationwide, median household income rose from 1989 to 1998. The counties with declines were often in metropolitan areas with the greatest surges in immigration, including New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego and Washington.

Roger Waldinger, an immigration expert at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the decline in household income could have been fueled by factors having nothing to do with immigration, like the increase in one-member and single- parent households.

Economists have pointed to other reasons for stagnant or declining incomes, including pressure from import competition, the declining power of labor unions, automation that pushes workers out of jobs and poor schools that churn out students who lack job skills.

Dr. Waldinger has conducted studies showing that in many communities, immigration affects income levels and the gap between rich and poor. He said income levels were dragged down by unemployment, not immigrants, who he said usually worked long hours. But many economists say limited skills and inadequate English relegated many immigrants to low-paying jobs

[nopardons]

The COUNTIES are " tonie "; the cities / towns mentioned are NOT !

FYI ... I live in Fairfield County ; but NOT in Bridgeport ( shudder , cringe ! ), Norwalk, nor Stamford. That doesn't mean that I don't know what each of them are like. LOL

[nopardons]

LOL, THANKY , and I have indeed done so ; often ! : - )

[nopardons]

Exactly so ! By jove, I think you've got it in one ; well done. : - )

BTW, please stop painting, with such a broad brush , about LEGAL immigrants. I happen to know quite a few of them, ALL of whom speak English fluently, have university and higher, degrees, and make six figure incomes.

[mbb bill]

The Clinton fat hog is falling apart.

[dennisw]

Now don't get smart w/ nopardons. She cooks a huge Christmas dinner with roasted goose each year. No fooling around for this gal! Rumor has it that a few years back she gave her Connecticut neighbor Martha Stewart cooking lessons and showed her how to keep an herb garden.

[nopardons]

Hi, my dear ! : - )

My kitchen garden IS rather nice and still producing. We've had such unusually warm weather, here. LOL

The goose is in the freezer, and I've already begun the goulash ( old family recipe, which family tradition claims goes back to Attila the HUN ! Very distant relative, which is another good reason to NOT cross me . ) , for Christmas Eve. I won't make the egg noodles for another day. : ^ )

MERRY CHRISTMAS , to you and your's, my dear.

[dennisw]

My kitchen garden IS rather nice and still producing. We've had such unusually warm weather, here. LOL

I psychically divined you kept a garden! Hahha
Yes the unseasonably warm weather has helped

The goose is in the freezer, and I've already begun the goulash ( old family recipe, which family tradition claims goes back to Attila the HUN ! Very distant relative, which is another good reason to NOT cross me . ) , for Christmas Eve. I won't make the egg noodles for another day. : ^ )

MERRY CHRISTMAS , to you and your's, my dear.

And a very MERRY CHRISTMAS  to you and your clan, honeybunch!

[nopardons]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh DEAR ; what AM I to do with you ? Of course I saw O'Rielly tonight. LOL I'm a CONSERVATIVE news / political junky !

Today's immgration mess goes back to 1965, and Teddy Kennedy's garbage Immigration Bill !

No, in the sceme of things ( for number crunchers ), the white, upper middle class immigrants, bit old and young, who I know, are but a very tiny part of the immigration situation. It is just that YOU ( and to be fair , others here ) keep talking as though the ONLY immigrants, both legal and ILLEAGAL, are Mexican and South Americans . That damages the debate, and makes you look like a bigot. Just as in this thread's article, is it was is implied, inferred, and LEFT OUT entirely, that makes it all suspect. : - )

[FITZ]

The conservative elites in the hacienda's

I think those are a lot of liberals. The conservatives are the ones out working having half or more of their taxes taken from them. Tyson's was a Clinton supporter and immigrant smuggler for the obvious reasons.

[junta]

Any prof. of agriculture doesn't know what end the manure comes out of an animal, and they are merely tools of those who make large grants to their departments, Tyson, Cargil, ADM and the rest.

[madrussian]

There is a good word for what's going on: third-worldization.

[Joe Hadenuf]

These politicians and so called leaders that make the decisions live in guarded, secure, and super nice clean communities, that price the average American and the illegals out.

Its just like the Southern California area. Everyone thinks its a third world, and some parts are. However, there is tons and tons of money in Southern California which have built extremely tall financial fences.

There are many areas in Southern California where the third worlders and illegals are completely locked out due to these tall financial fences. Large areas of $300,000 homes and *UP* do an excellent job of keeping the average American and the millions of illegal out. Huge areas of million PLUS dollar homes are common place.

The politicians live in these very nice areas, so they don't give a damn about you or your daughters and grandkids. You see the politicians and our so called leaders are protected in their super nice areas. *THEIR* daughters and grandkids wont have to worry about bumping bellies with, and living among the millions of illegals aliens like many rank and file Americans have to.

The politicians don't give a damn about you or me. Their big decision is what to wear to the next luncheon or TV interview, or deciding which party to go to tonight.

[nopardons]

There is NO way, that I would EVER stand with ILLEGALS, nor the companies / people who employ them ! What have I ever posted, which would lead you to assume that I would ? : - (

Yes, I read about that case, here in Conn., and Tyson deserves to be in court, for decades. They have ALWAYS been in the midst of shady practices. I won't buy anything they sell ( been boycotting them for a decade !), and have convinced everyone I know to boycot them too.

I did NOT say that low paying jobs ( re the immigrants ) cut into high end salaries ; the idiot author of the article did. In Conn., what hampered / cut into upper levels of income, was the slight recession of the early '90's, Slick's income tax ( RETROACTICVE ! ) raise, the beginning of the Stock Market plunge ( March of 2000 ! This is NOT a " Bush recession " ), the dotcom BUBBLE burst ( Priceline.com's CEO's mansion was stopped midway through being built, and is STILL in that condition ! ) , and such.

[RnMomof7]

It is offical government policy to import cheap educated labor....Engineers....doctors....nurses....educators..

They will all work long hours for less money..this is part of the free trade open borders gift to big Business....

[RnMomof7]

Bump

[nopardons]

Listen newbie, you'd best rethink replying to me, since almost EVERY post of your's ( all but one, actually, have been snide, smarmy, and baiting / a personal attack ), has been argumentative, inacurate ( as to what I have said !) , twisting my words, and insulting. Read the posting rules, and obey them !

Oh right, leave out what I said about Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigraton Bill , then offhandedly , throw in that I mentioned ( I did MORE than that! ) , and then go off on your own tirade. That isn't refutation, and neither is saying that I am NO Coservative. In truth, YOU appear to be a DU troll, NOT a Conservative at all, and yes, you have appeared to be a racist.

The 1965 Immigration Bill, DID favor nonCaucasian immigrants ! Since you don't know much about immigration, do allow me to teach you some history, on this topic. : -)

Prior to 1965 , European / Caucazoid immigration was , if not favored, NOT hampered, as the 1965 made it. From the times of the mid/ late 19th century , each influx of " others ", HAS caused the majority of the native born, to rail against the new commers. The Sephardic Jews , looked on , with a jaundiced eye, as the German / Middle European Jews came. The Knownothings, were against Catholic and Jewish immigrants ! The potatoe famin Irish immigrants, were faced with :" IRISH NEED NOT ALPLY ", and " NO DOHS / NO IRISH " signs, cartoons depicting them as drunks, slatterns, and gorillas. The later ( very late 19th / early 20th century ) influx of Russian and Polish Jews, had American Jewery up in arms ! They really weren't all that far off, as this later group, really was composed of a majority of Marxist / Socialist types , whose children , grandchildren, and great grandchildren have been in the forefront of the LIBERAL / SOCIALIST putch in this country. The Italians had more than their fair share of caluny heaped on them, and their IS a resovoir of this , alive and well today. The Portugese, in Rhode Island & Conn., faced / face discrimination. The earlier immigration laws, FORBADE Chinese women to come here. Then, white Americans went ballistic , when Chinese men wooed / married white women.

I could go on, but YOU would find a way to mangle it all/ ignore the facts. : - (

I NEVER, not once, EVER claimed that middle class / wealthy immigrants were a majority , nor just an equal group , of those who come here. GET YOUR EYES CHECKED, TAKE A READING COMPREHENSION CLASS, AND DO TRY TO SEE WHAT I WRITE, INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU IMAGINE YOU SEE !

The author , of the origial stats, is an idiot ; I said so, and so did others. He is an inept writer, biased, and the article is filled with inacuracies, slanted polemics, and untruths; just like your posts. Why, on earth, are YOU stnding with the N.Y. Times, and their LIBERAL / LEFTY " journalist " ? GO BACK TO DU !