New York TIMES / June 25, 2013, 12:15 pm

Immigration and the Labor Market
By EDUARDO PORTER

Are American workers are about to experience unwelcome new competition
for their jobs? The bill moving through Congress to overhaul the
nation’s immigration laws, if approved, would give employers access to
expanded visa programs that would admit hundreds of thousands of
immigrant workers, of both low and high skills, to toil in workplaces
from strawberry fields to technology companies.

Weighing the economic claims in the Congressional debate.

The legislation also offers legal status to millions of immigrants
working illegally across the country, and ultimately a shot at
citizenship. The change would encourage many to roam freely throughout
the economy, leaving dead-end jobs in immigrant-heavy sectors of the
labor market to seek higher pay elsewhere.

But by many accounts, most American workers need not worry about the
prospect of hordes of workers entering the country with an eye on
their jobs. Rather, immigration is seen as more likely to leave
American workers better off.

The latest organization to come to this conclusion is the
Congressional Budget Office, which issued a report this month
concluding that the immigration bill would add six million workers to
the American job market by 2023 and nine million by 2033 – increasing
the labor force by 5 percent.

In the beginning, the jump in immigration would hit pay, the office
said. It expects that by 2023 average wages would be 0.1 percent
lower, on average, than they would have been absent a change in law.

Still, most American workers would have little to worry about. Average
wages would decline to a large extent because most of the new
immigrant workers would be paid less than domestic laborers, pulling
the average down. Most importantly, the decline would only be
temporary. Wages would rise as businesses invested to take advantage
of the expanded labor force. By 2033, the C.B.O. forecast, average
wages would be 0.5 percent higher than they would have been without
the new immigrants.

These conclusions may seem to fly in the face of the laws of supply
and demand. But they are not quite so odd. They can become obvious, in
fact, when accounting for the response of American companies, and
workers, to the inflows of foreign labor.

The belief that immigration would simply displace American workers
relies on the assumption that employers would do nothing but replace a
costlier domestic labor force with cheaper imports. But companies
actually invest and expand to reap the higher profits that the new
labor allows. This provides new opportunities for immigrants and
domestic workers alike.

[That is, if immigrants can't work in the U.S., businesses will move
their operations to where those folks are, produce stuff, and sell it
to people in the U.S.?]

In other words, immigration can produce jobs for Americans, too.
Restaurants are much less common in Norway than the United States
because Norway lacks the cheap labor — making a dinner out in Oslo
prohibitively expensive. In many New York restaurants, the American
waiters and maitre d’ owe their jobs to the underpaid immigrants
working illegally in the kitchen, whose low wages allow the restaurant
to exist.

What’s more, immigration expands productivity. Highly skilled
immigrant workers generate more productive innovations. And the influx
of new workers of a variety of skills, high and low, would promote
specialization.

Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis,
and Chad Sparber of Colgate University found that American workers in
states with large shares of less-educated immigrants gravitate towards
communications-related occupations, their area of comparative
advantage, while the immigrants stick to manual tasks and physical
labor.

This increases the growth rate of the economy and pushes wages higher.
[really??]  Mr. Peri estimated that the wave of immigrants that
entered the United States between 1990 and 2007 increased workers’
incomes by about $5,100 a year on average, in 2005 dollars. This
amounts to more than a fifth of the income gains over the period.

There will be losers, especially among the workers most like the
newcomers. A 50-year-old janitor with no high school diploma, for
instance, will find it hard to make a transition into another job when
immigrants move into the building maintenance business. But this group
is probably small, and composed mostly of illegal immigrants already
in the workplace.

George Borjas of Harvard University argues that those without a high
school diploma – about 8 percent of the labor force — are easily
replaced by immigrants and are likely to suffer a noticeable drop in
wages if low-skill immigration increases. Mr. Peri disagrees. He
argues that high-school dropouts could find jobs in parts of the labor
market that might even benefit from new immigrants’ arrival.

The Congressional Budget Office looked at it differently. Rather than
split the work force by educational attainment, it sliced it into five
equal cohorts of skill, from the least educated fifth to the most. It
found that none of these groups is hurt by immigration over the long
run, in absolute terms. Some gain more, and some gain less. [no
transition costs?]

Unskilled American workers – who never completed high school, or maybe
got an equivalency diploma — would do relatively poorly. So would
highly educated workers, who would face more competition from new
immigrant scientists and engineers with H1-B visas.

Average wages in both these slices would decline 0.3 percent relative
to the average by 2033. The rest of workers, by contrast, would see
their relative wages rise by 0.5 percent.

But even though the gains would not be distributed evenly, according
to the study, every group would win. “Average wages would be higher
under the bill than under current law for workers in all quintiles of
the skill distribution,” it said.

-- 
Jim Devine /  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to