has the quality of immigrants declined? evidence from the labor market attachment of immigrants and...

HAS THE QUALITY OF IMMIGRANTS DECLINED? EVIDENCE FROM THE LABOR MARKET ATTACHMENT OF IMMIGRANTS AND NATIVES

RICHARD FRY*

7

ABBREVIATION CPS: Current Population Survey

This is an investigation of the labor market activities I$ U.S. immigrants who arrived from the 2960s through the 1980s. Relative to natives, upon arrival male immigrants who urrived during the 1980s are more likely to be persistently jobless than are male immigrants who arrived during the 1960s. The increased disengagement 4 immigrant arrivals from the U.S. labor market appears solely in the form of labor market withdrawal and has not manFsted itseF in increased institutionalization. Though the “new immigration” apparently does not increase fiscal burdens on the penal system, it nonetheless is expanding the dependent population. The greater labor market idleness I$ today’s immigrants relative to pre-1970 arrivals is consistent with a growing body of: economic midence suggesting a deterioration of U.S. immigrants‘ labor market capital and success during the post war period.

I. INTRODUCTION

Proposition 187 and the uptick of U.S. Congressional initiatives demonstrate re- newed debate on the merits of many U.S. immigration policies. lieformers challenge the levels of legal immigration and the criteria for admission as well as immigrants’ entitlement to an array of public services and transfers. (In this paper, ”immigrants” refer to the foreign born, not permanent resident aliens.) Economics literature on the impacts of immigrants on native U.S. workers’ wage and employment opportunities is growing. Other economic research simply seeks to evaluate immigrants’ labor market and social characteristics, com-

*Labor Economist, Division of Immigration Policy & Research, U.S. Department of Labor, email: [email protected]. The author thanks Stephen Trejo and Mark Regets for assistance in obtaining 1970 census data and Kristin Butcher, Greg DeFreitas, Edward Funkhouser, and Stephen Trejo for their comments. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Western Economic Association International 70th An- nual Conference, San Diego, Calif., July 8, 1995. The analyses and conclusions are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. De- partment of Labor.

Contemporary Economic Policy (ISSN 1074-3529) Vol. Xrv, July 1996

53

OWestern Economic Association International

54 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY

times as many prime-age, out-of-school men did not work at all during the year. Today more than one out of 20 prime-age men are not employed, not enrolled in school, and have not worked in the past 15 months.

Second, immigration is an important source of U.S. population growth. Demog- raphers project that under current U.S. immigration law, immigrants and their chil- dren account for about half of the country’s population growth presently and will account for 60 percent within a few decades. By 2040, projections suggest that one in four U.S. residents will be an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. In addition, immigration is contributing to the further racial/ethnic diversification of the population (see Fix and Passel, 1994).

At the margin, therefore, the human capital or skills that immigrants bring to the labor market deserve scrutiny. Non- elderly males may lack the skills or abilities to land employment or a seat in school. If new immigrants are contributing to the young male population outside the labor market, then the new immigrant flows are exacerbating the dependent population and the population eligible for cash income transfers. (For nonelderly males labor market nonparticipation is a necessary condition for receiving many public cash income transfers, including general assistance and disability payments under social security and supplemental security income.) In addition, the new immigrants may be expanding the urban ”un- derclass.” National assessment of U.S. immigration policies should consider these characteristics.

1 1 . THE ECONOMIC QUALITIES OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS

Two recent studies by Bojas compare, with respect to economic traits, immigrants arriving during the 1980s with those arriving before 1970. (Funkhouser and Trejo, 1995, Butcher and Piehl, 1995, and Funkhouser, 1995, examine various

characteristics of 1980s immigrants but do not compare these newest arrival cohorts to pre-1970 arrivals.) Borjas (1995a) uses 1970,1980, and 1990 census data to examine the log hourly wage rate of immigrant cohorts relative to natives. Restricting his analysis to males aged 25-64, he finds that upon arrival, the 1985-1989 arrival cohort received lower relative wage rates than did the 1965-1969 arrival cohort. The pre- cise magnitude of the decline depends on the method of analysis, but a 15 percentage point decline is representative. Borjas also responds to concerns that immigrant performance upon entry is a poor measure of long-run immigrant achievement. He finds that the lower initial starting posi- tions of 1970s immigrants have not been offset by higher subsequent wage growth, leading to the projection that 1980s immigrants will never achieve hourly wage rate parity with natives.

Economists often use the price of labor to measure immigrant quality despite the associated methodological problems. Among other difficulties, a price of labor measure is readily constructed only for persons who generate earnings, i.e., the employed population. Among prime-age males, about one out of eight lacks a job. On a different vein, Borjas (1995a) uses census data to examine trends in the hourly wage rate. The census, unlike the CPS, asks the respondent to report only his/her annual earnings. Fortunately, other measures of immigrant achievement are available to supplement the findings based on earnings measures.

Bojas (1995b) uses 1970 to 1990 census data to examine the propensity of households (with heads aged 18 and over) to receive cash welfare benefits-AFDC, SSI, and general assistance. He classifies household nativity status by using the nativity of the household head. Among male- headed households, Borjas finds that upon entry, 1980s immigrant arrivals were more likely to receive cash welfare than were 1960s immigrant arrivals. Native male-

FRY: HAS THE QUALITY OF IMMIGRANTS DECLINED? 55

headed households also increased their welfare usage between 1970 and 1990. Yet the increase was much greater among re- cently arrived immigrants than among natives, so that relative to natives, 1980s arrivals appear ”more welfare-prone” than do 1960s arrivals.

Borjas’s (1995b) results may hinge on the level of analysis he elects-the household. His procedures classify a household as receiving welfare if any household member (regardless of nativity) receives welfare. An analysis of welfare participation at the individual level very likely would reveal different immigrant welfare propensities over time.

For all immigrant households, Borjas (1995b) reports that 8.7 percent received welfare during 1979 and 9.1 percent received welfare during 1989. For all native households, Borjas’s corresponding figures are 7.9 percent and 7.4 percent. Thus, he asserts that “the ’welfare gap’ between immigrants and natives widened substantially” during the 1980s. However, the welfare gap did not widen among immigrant and native persons from 1979 to 1989. Pas- sel and Fix (1994) use 1980 and 1990 census data to examine individual propensities to receive AFDC, SSI, and general assistance among those aged 15 and over. They report that among immigrants, 4.8 percent received cash welfare during 1979 and 4.7 percent during 1989. Among natives, the corresponding figures are 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent. Hence, relative to natives, immigrant individuals were no more likely to receive cash welfare in 1989 than in 1979.

In sum, the extant literature on the quality of 1980s immigrants examines several dimensions of behavior and points to a marked falling off in achievement. Trends in male labor market idleness, however, have not yet received special attention.

111. SUMMARY STATISTICS

This examination of nonelderly male immigrants’ economic activities utilizes

data extracts from the 1970 3 percent and 1980 and 1990 5 percent public-use micro samples of the decennial census. [Obtain- ing a 1970 3 percent sample involves com- bining the 1970 1 percent Neighborhood Characteristics file (5 percent data), the 1970 1 percent State file (5 percent data), and the 1970 1 percent SMSA and County Group file (5 percent data).] The extracts include all immigrants and all natives from smaller native populations but ran- dom subsamples of the larger native populations from each Census micro sample. (According to U.S. Census Bureau prac- tices, an ”immigrant” is not a U.S. citizen or is a U.S. citizen by naturalization. This implies that those born in Puerto Rico and Guam are classified as natives.) The descriptive analysis presents appropriately weighted statistics in order to portray ac- curately the behavior of the U.S. male population, including noncivilians and the institutionalized. The analysis exclusively il- luminates the behavior of young and prime-age men in order to abstract from any possible differences in retirement behavior between immigrants and natives.

Table 1 shows basic demographic characteristics of recent immigrants and natives at each census. ”Recent immigrants” denotes those who arrived within five years of the census: those who entered after 1984 for the 1990 census, those who entered after 1974 for the 1980 census, and so forth. The examination focuses on the characteristics of the recent immigrant flows to the United States and purges the traits of older waves of immigrants. Rela- tive to 1960s proportions, 1980s immigrant arrivals are more Hispanic, more nonwhite (reflecting increased immigration of As- ians), and somewhat more black. Follow- ing Borjas (1995a), table 1 also indicates that immigrants to the United States are increasingly educated. The fraction of immigrant arrivals having either less than a ninth grade education or lacking a high school diploma has dropped since 1970. Yet, the native male population has made

TABL

E 1

Sele

cted

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of N

ativ

e an

d R

ecen

t Im

mig

rant

Men

, Age

d 16

to 5

4

1970

19

80

1990

8 Z

Rec

ent

Rec

ent

Rec

ent

1 C

hara

cter

istic

N

ativ

e Im

mig

rant

a N

ativ

e Im

mig

rant

N

ativ

e Im

mig

rant

Mea

n ag

e 33

.2

31.1

32

.0

28.7

33

.3

28.9

7’0

9th

gra

de d

ropo

ut

15.0

30

.5

7.7

26.6

3.

5 23

.0

YO h

igh

scho

ol d

ropo

ut

40.1

45

.7

28.1

41

.8

21.1

44

.0

7’0 c

olle

ge g

rad

13.0

23

.8

17.8

20

.5

20.8

21

.4

7‘0 n

onw

hite

11

.2

23.3

14

.4

55.8

15

.9

59.4

YO

bla

ck

10.3

6.

7 11

.2

7.3

11.9

7.

5 YO

his

pani

c 3.

5 34

.2

4.5

37.6

E 2 I? 2

5.4

49.0

E

To m

anuf

actu

ring

em

ploy

men

t 28

.7

33.0

25

.6

29.8

21

.4

19.4

0

% d

urab

le m

anuf

actu

ring

empl

oym

ent

18.9

20

.8

17.3

19

.5

14.0

11

.9

2 0

Mea

n ag

e-at

-arr

ival

-

28.6

-

26.2

-

26.8

9.

3 Yo

bor

n in

“re

fuge

e-se

ndin

g na

tion”

-

13.2

-

13.6

-

b

Sour

ce: 1

970

3 pe

rcen

t and

198

0 an

d 19

90 5

per

cent

US.

Cen

sus

extr

acts

. N

ote:

Sam

ple

size

s ar

e sh

own

in t

able

2.

a”R

ecen

t im

mig

rant

s” r

efer

s to

imm

igra

nts

that

arr

ived

with

in 0

to 5

yea

rs o

f th

e ce

nsus

. R

efug

ee-s

endi

ng n

atio

n” r

efer

s to

the

15 c

ount

ries

that

Fix

and

Pas

sel

(199

4) a

nd B

orja

s (1

995b

) ide

ntif

y as

the

chie

f so

urce

s of

US

. ref

ugee

s,

nam

ely,

Afg

hani

stan

, A

lban

ia, B

ulga

ria,

Cam

bodi

a, C

uba,

Cze

chos

lova

kia,

Eth

iopi

a, H

unga

ry, I

raq,

Lao

s, Po

land

, Rom

ania

, Sov

iet U

nion

, Tha

iland

, an

d V

ietn

am.

b,,


marked improvements in educational attainment. Finally, the decline in manufacturing employment has received much attention in relation to a plethora of labor market ills. Note that as of 1970, immigrant arrivals were more reliant on manufacturing employment than were the native population.

With this background, consider first static measures of male labor market activity during the calendar week preceding census enumeration. The analysis adopts the five-fold taxonomy of economic activities used by Welch (1990) to examine white-black trends in labor market inactivity. An individual is categorized into one of the following mutually exclusive states: (i) institutionalized, (iil if not institutionalized, then either employed or enlisted, (iii) enrolled in school (only men 30 years old or younger are classified as enrolled in school), (iv) unemployed, or (v) not in the labor force. Regarding those who are both employed and enrolled in school, individuals working less than 35 hours are treated as enrolled while individuals working more than 35 hours are treated as employed or enlisted.

Table 2 depicts natives’ static labor market activities in 1970, 1980, and 1990 and compares them to all immigrants and recent immigrants. Coluinns (2) through (4) document the labor market activities for all males aged 16 to 54. Table 2 shows that throughout the period immigrants have been equally as successful as natives in en- gaging in productive activities. In 1970, about 94 percent of immigrants were employed, enrolled, or searching for work, and in 1990 about 92 percent of immigrants were engaged in productive pur- suits. Furthermore, in both years, immigrants were less likely than natives to be inmates of correctional facilities, mental institutions, drug treatment centers, and other institutions. (The proportion of aged 16 to 54 male inmates in prisons and jails was about 49 percent in 1970 and 61 percent in 1980. The fraction in correctional

institutions also varies with age and nativity. See Fry, 1995; Butcher and Piehl, 1995.)

Comparing traits of all immigrants at 1970 and 1990 does not measure the change in traits of immigrants who arrived in the 1980s from those who arrived in the 1960s. Between 1970 and 1990, new immigrants arrived, but earlier immigrant arrivals left the resident U.S. population aged 16-54 due to aging, death, and emi- gration. In addition, earlier immigrant arrivals remaining in the target population likely altered their economic activities as a result of further acquiring U.S. specific human capital and learning about the U.S. labor market, welfare system, criminal opportunities, and other institutions. Earlier immigrants “assimilated” into a different level of labor market activity than the one characterizing them upon arrival to the United States. For these reasons, one should compare the economic activities of arrival cohorts that have been in the United States a similar number of years in order to judge the traits of 1980s immigrants relative to those of earlier arrivals. Table 2 shows this comparison only for ”recent” immigrant arrival cohorts.

Among men aged 16 to 54, table 2 indicates a long-run decline in U.S. immigrants’ labor market engagement. Relative to natives, as well as absolutely, a smaller fraction of recent immigrants were engaged in productive endeavors in 1990 than in 1970. Note two qualifications to this downward trend. First, relative to natives, the fraction of recent immigrants in institutions remained constant between 1970 and 1990, so that the greater inactivity was solely labor market nonparticipation. Second, compared with 1960s immigrants, late 1980s arrivals seem less eco- nomically active, but table 2 shows that they are more active than 1970s immigrants. Thus, the time profile of immigrant labor market involvement appears to be bowl-shaped.

Several factors motivate additional analysis of young males aged 20 to 24 and

w1 m

TA

BL

E 2

L

abor

Mar

ket

Stat

us of

Nat

ive

and

Imm

igra

nt M

en, 1

970,

1980

, and

199

0

Nat

ives

A

ges

16-5

4 A

ges

20-2

4 A

ges

25-4

4 ~

1970

19

80

3 990

19

70

1980

19

90

1970

19

80

1990

YO

enr

olle

d in

sch

ool

13.7

1.

6 1.

4 %

em

ploy

ed o

r en

liste

d %

une

mpl

oyed

%

not

in

labo

r fo

rce

70 in

stitu

tiona

lized

T

otal

s Sa

mpl

e Si

ze

70 en

rolle

d in

sch

ool

YO e

mpl

oyed

or

enlis

ted

70 un

empl

oyed

%

not

in l

abor

for

ce

70 in

stitu

tiona

lized

Sa

mpl

e Si

ze

70 en

roll

ed i

n sc

hool

70 em

ploy

ed o

r en

liste

d 70 un

empl

oyed

70

not

in la

bor

forc

e 70 in

stitu

tiona

lized

Sa

mpl

e Si

ze

77.4

2.

6 5.

0 1.

2 7 0

0.0

81,2

92

-4.3

4.

8 0.

1 0.

2 -0

.8

60,7

17

0.1

-1.6

0.

4 2.

0 -0

.9

15,9

06

13.5

74

.5

5.0

5.8

1.2

100.

0 18

0,84

9

-1.7

2.

0 -0

.4

0.7

-0.6

19

9,70

3

6.8

-10.

1 -0

.1

4.1

-0.6

59

,259

12.0

19

.5

18.3

24

.7

1.0

75.6

70

.0

67.2

61

.5

91.6

4.

6 3.

7 7.

8 6.

4 2.

4 6.

1 5.

3 5.

1 5.

0 3.

7 1.

7 1.

5 1.

7 2.

4 1.

3 10

0.0

100.

0 10

0.0

100.

0 10

0.0

213,

671

13,3

66

34,3

86

33,4

79

38,9

02

Diff

eren

ce b

etwe

en I

mm

igra

nts

and

Nat

ives

-1

.5

5.7

6.8

0.1

1.8

0.8

-7.7

-5

.7

0.3

-1.6

0.

7 -0

.2

-2.2

-0

.6

0.2

0.4

3.0

1.7

0.8

0.6

-0.4

-1

.0

-0.7

-0

.6

-0.9

315,

932

7,28

8 30

,706

45

,080

32

,903

Drff

eren

ce b

etwe

en R

ecen

t Im

mig

rant

sa a

nd N

ativ

es

5.0

8.7

12.5

-0

.7

4.8

-8.8

-1

1.2

-12.

1 0.

3 -6

.4

1.6

-1.0

-2

.7

-0.2

0.

5 3.

0 4.

5 3.

1 1.

6 2.

0 -0

.8

-1.1

-1

.1

-1.1

-1

.0

84,3

69

2,73

2 14

,444

21

,159

9,

840

87.6

4.

8 4.

8 1.

2 10

0.0

87,7

01

2.2

-2.5

-0

.2

1.1

-0.7

11

2,97

3

7.4

-11.

8 0.0

5.1

-0.7

31

,858

86.4

4.

7 5.

5 1.

9 10

0.0

116,

031

! E 2 2.

1 -3

.0

0.6

0.8

l -0

.5

n 8

190,

012

6.6

-11.

0 1.4

4.1

-1.1

45

,313

Sour

ce: 1

970

3 pe

rcen

t and

198

0 an

d 19

90 5

per

cent

US.

Cen

sus

extra

cts

a”R

ecen

t im

mig

rant

s” re

fers

to im

mig

rant

s w

ho a

rrive

d w

ithin

0 to

5 y

ears

of

the

cens

us.

FRY HAS THE QUALITY OF IMMIGRANTS DECLINED? 59

of prime-age males aged 25 to 44. Econo- mists conventionally have viewed the labor market problems confronting youths aged 16 to 24, especially minority and urban youth, as more severe and different from those confronting older populations. The labor market behavior of young adults does diverge from that of prime-age men. Young adults are less likely to be labor market inactive than are males over age 24. In addition, both schooling and criminal activity occur largely during the teen and young adult portion of the life cycle (see Mare, 1994, on schooling). One reason to examine outcomes among 25 to 44 year old men is that this population likely is free of trends regarding early retirement.

Table 2 provides prima facia evidence for examining disaggregate age groupings. The table documents that the rising es- trangement of immigrant arrivals from U.S. labor market institutions does not characterize young adult immigrants. Be- tween 1970 and 1990, the fraction of young adult recent immigrants that are enrolled, employed, or job shopping markedly rose-absolutely, as well as relative to native young adults.

Table 2 also documents young adult recent immigrants’ substantial reallocation of efforts to acquire human capital. In 1970, 28.2 percent of recent young adult immigrants were predominantly engaged in schooling. By 1990, the proportion acquiring human capital via schooling rather than full-time job market experience declined to 24.0 percent. Table 2 shows that native young adults were increasing their school enrollment between 1970 and 1990. Thus, upon entry, both absolutely and relative to natives, the 1990 recent immigrant arrival cohort was substantially more work centered, at the expense of schooling, than was the 1970 recent immigrant arrival cohort.

Thus far the discussion has focussed on the static activities of recent immigrants. However, the notion of economic idleness is a dvnamic concevt and is better cav-

tured by measures of behavior over time. One dynamic measure of labor market inactivity attempts to capture persistent isolation from U.S. labor market institutions: the census question regarding the year the respondent last worked. This information provides the basis for constructing a dynamic measure of labor market idleness. Define a “labor market nonparticipant” as an individual who is, as of the census ref- erence week, neither currently enrolled nor employed and who has not worked during the prior 15 months (last worked prior to 1989 or never worked according to the 1990 census and last worked prior to 1979 or never worked according to the 1980 census, etc.). Haveman and Wolfe (1994) utilize a similar measure in studying the determinants of economic inactivity. Table 3 presents the fraction of the population who were labor market nonpartic- ipants in 1990, 1980, and 1970 among natives, all immigrants, and by immigrant arrival cohort.

Confirming Juhn’s (1992) tabulations from the CPS, table 3 shows that the incidence of prolonged labor market inactivity steeply increased among both natives (from 3.2 percent to 5.5 percent) and immigrants from 1970 to 1990. Among men aged 25 to 44, the incidence of economic idleness more than doubled over 20 years. The labor market nonparticipation rates indicate that the flow of immigrant arrivals to the United States over the past 20 years has exacerbated rather than miti- gated the prevalence of idleness among the nonelderly male population. Among men aged 16 to 54, each of the four immigrant arrival cohorts exhibits an increase in idleness in excess of the native increase in idleness, when measured from 1970 to 1990 (table 3). At the same stage of dura- tion in the United States, immigrants who arrived after 1970 were more isolated from the world of work and school than were pre-1970 immigrants.

Table 3’s labor market nonparticipation rates Drovide some evidence that. al-

TABL

E 3

Labo

r Mar

ket N

onpa

rtic

ipat

ion

Rat

es (i

n pe

rcen

t) of

Nat

ive an

d Im

mig

rant

Men

, 197

0,19

80 a

nd 1

990

(Sam

ple S

izes

in P

aren

thes

es)

Age

s 16-54

Imm

igra

nt A

rriv

al C

ohor

ts-Y

ears

A

rriv

ed B

efor

e C

ensu

s A

ll

Nat

ives

Im

mig

rant

s 0-

5 6-

10

11-15

16-2

0 21-30

~~

1970

cen

sus

3.2

3.1

4.3

1.8

1.7

2.2

-

(81,

292)

(6

0,71

7)

(15,

906)

(1

1,17

2)

(10,

346)

(8

,368

) -

1980

cen

sus

4.9

5.1

7.9

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.9

1990

cen

sus

5.5

5.8

8.3

5.3

4.1

4.7

5.0

(180

,849

) (1

99,7

03)

(59,

259)

(4

0,91

0)

(33,

292)

(2

5,36

3)

(30,

579)

(213

,671

) (3

15,9

32)

(84,

369)

(7

3,05

6)

(54,

423)

(4

1,34

9)

(43,

641)

Age

s 25

-44

~~

~

1970

cen

sus

2.3

2.3

3.0

1.2

1.2

1.6

_.

(38,

902)

(3

2,90

3)

(9,8

40)

(7,1

95)

(6,2

47)

(4,1

29)

-

1980

cen

sus

4.0

4.3

7.3

2.8

2.9

2.9

3.3

(87,

701)

(1

12,9

73)

(31,

858)

(2

6,44

6)

(19,

883)

(1

3,51

0)

(16,

586)

1990

cen

sus

5.1

5.3

8.1

4.8

3.7

4.3

4.8

(116

,031

) (1

90,0

12)

(45,

313)

(4

7,80

9)

(37,

162)

(2

5,34

5)

(24,

756)

Age

s 20

-24

-

1970

cen

sus

2.9

4.8

6.3

2.8

2.7

4.3

(13,

366)

(7

,288

) (2

,732

) (1

,267

) (1

,059

) (1

,096

) -

1980

cen

sus

3.9

5.5

6.9

4.4

4.9

3.2

3.7

(34,

386)

(3

0,70

6)

(14,

444)

(6

,104

(3

,907

) (3

,468

) (2

,783

) 19

90 c

ensu

s 4.

8 5.

8 6.

6 4.

7 4.

7 5.

7 6.

2 (3

3,47

9)

(45,

080)

(2

1,15

9)

(11,

705)

(5

,629

) (4

,444

) (2

,143

)

Sour

ce: 1

970

3 pe

rcen

t and

198

0 an

d 19

90 5 p

erce

nt U

.S. C

ensu

s ext

ract

s N

ote:

The

labo

r m

arke

t non

part

icip

atio

n ra

te re

fers

to t

he fr

actio

n of

the

popu

latio

n th

at is

not

enr

olle

d, e

mpl

oyed

, or

enlis

ted

in

the

wee

k pr

eced

ing

cens

us e

num

erat

ion

and

that

has

not

wor

ked

in th

e pr

ior

15 m

onth

s.


though immigrants who arrived in the 1980s are more idle than immigrants who arrived in the 1960s, 1980s immigrants are less idle than immigrants arrived in the 1970s. For example, among men aged 25 to 44, the native labor market nonparticipation rate rose 1.1 percentage points from 1980 to 1990. Yet among immigrants who had arrived within zero to five years of the census, the labor market nonparticipation rate rose 0.8 percentage points from 1980 to 1990-from 7.3 percent to 8.1 percent. Thus, the deterioration in immigrant labor market attachment appears to have been arrested. Table 3 also supports the proposition that the long-term decline in immigrant labor market attachment is confined to prime-age immigrants. Among young adults, labor market nonparticipation rates did rise from 1970 to 1990 for all four immigrant arrival cohorts, but relative to native young adults, immigrant idleness declined.

The descriptive analysis thus far has used the changes in the behavior of all natives over time as the norm against which to compare changes in the behavior of immigrant arrival cohorts. Rather than comparing immigrant arrivals to all natives, one can use natives of similar ethnicity and race to control for the changes in the economic and social environment occur- ring between 1970 and 1990. The 1990 Cen- sus reveals at least 38 different racial iden- tifications, but the 1970 Census identifies only seven. Across the three Censuses, one can identify nine mutually exclusive ethnic-race groups. The top panel of table 4 displays the labor market nonparticipation rates of native young adults and prime-age men among eight ethnic-race groups. Table 4 omits the rates of the ninth ethnic-race group, the residual group, made up of nonHispanic American Indi- ans, Eskimos, Aleuts, other Asian and Pa- cific Islanders, and “Other races.” The fact that the residual group is composed of such radically different ethnic-race groups in terms of labor market behavior war-

rants suppressing its traits. With the exception of Cubans, prime-age men in every native ethnic-race group experienced an increase in idleness between 1970 and 1990.

The middle panel of table 4 presents the difference in labor market nonparticipation rates between recent immigrants and natives, where the native comparison group is natives of all ethnic-races of like age, including Puerto Ricans and the residual ethnic-race group, from table 3. For example, for young adults, the middle panel shows the recent immigrant labor market nonparticipation rate for that ethnic-race group minus 2.9 percent for 1970, minus 3.9 percent for 1980, and minus 4.8 for 1990. With the exception of Filipino and Japanese recent arrivals, men aged 25 to 44 in every recent immigrant ethnic-race group experienced an increase in economic inactivity from 1970 to 1990 relative to all natives of like age. With the exception of Mexicans and nonHispanic blacks, young adults in every recent immigrant arrival group experienced a decline in labor market isolation from 1970 to 1990 relative to all native young adults.

The bottom panel of table 4 uses the native labor market nonparticipation rate of the like ethnic-race group and age and tallies the difference between the labor market nonparticipation rate of recent immigrants and natives. The top panel shows very steep declines in labor market attachment among certain native minority populations between 1970 and 1990. Thus, using this alternative norm of comparison understandably generates slightly different conclusions. Namely, the declines in the labor market engagement of non- Hispanic black recent immigrants are re- versed when compared to native non- Hispanic blacks. Recall from table 1, however, that nonHispanic blacks are a small portion of recent immigrant flows. More importantly, the decline in the labor market engagement of Mexican and other Hispanic recent immigrants reverses when

TABL

E 4

Lab

or M

arke

t Non

part

icip

atio

n R

ates

(in

per

cent

) of

Nat

ive

and

Rec

ent I

mm

igra

nt M

en, b

y Et

hnic

-rac

e G

roup

Nat

ives

A

ges

20-2

4 A

ges

25-4

4

1970

19

80

1990

19

70

1980

19

90

m

N

Cub

ans

Mex

ican

s Pu

erto

Ric

ans

Oth

er H

ispa

nics

N

onH

ispa

nic

Filip

inos

and

Jap

anes

e N

onH

ispa

nic

Chi

nese

N

onH

ispa

nic

blac

ks

Non

His

pani

c w

hite

s

Cub

ans

Mex

ican

s O

ther

His

pani

cs (

exce

pt P

uert

o R

ican

s)

Non

His

pani

c Fi

lipin

os a

nd J

apan

ese

Non

His

pani

c C

hine

se

Non

His

pani

c bl

acks

N

onH

ispa

nic

whi

tes

Cub

ans

Mex

ican

s O

ther

His

pani

cs (

exce

pt P

uert

o R

ican

s)

Non

His

pani

c Fi

lipin

os a

nd J

apan

ese

Non

His

pani

c C

hine

se

Non

His

pani

c bl

acks

N

onH

ispa

nic

whi

tes

5.9

4.1

9.9

4.2

2.7

2.5

8.3

2.1

7.3

1.1

5.1

5.1

3.4

3.8

2.7

4.3

-0.1

3.

8 5.

3 3.

8 -1

.6

3.5

6.0

2.9

6.8

6.0

5.2

7.5

3.2

5.3

12.3

13

.5

7.7

12.8

4.

9 6.

3 2.

5 5.

1 2.

6 2.

4 1.

4 2.

5 2.

4 2.

0 1.

6 2.

3 13

.1

15.5

5.

8 11

.9

2.3

2.7

1.9

2.9

Dif

fere

nce

betw

een

Rec

ent

Imm

igra

ntsa

and

Nat

ives

B

ase

grou

p: A

ll n

ativ

es o

f lik

e ag

e 3.

6 1.

6 0.

7 12

.3

1.9

1.6

0.4

1.4

4.4

3.8

0.9

2.8

3.2

-1.2

0.

7 -0

.1

1.2

-0.6

2.

2 4.

4 5.

7 4.

9 3.

7 5.

6 1.

4 0.

4 -0

.3

2.2

Dif

fere

nce

betw

een

Rec

ent I

mm

igra

nts

and

Nat

ives

B

ase

grou

p: N

ativ

es o

f lik

e et

hnic

ity-r

ace

and

age

1.5

3.5

-3.8

10

.3

0.6

-1.1

-0

.5

0.1

3.4

2.3

0.7

1.7

4.5

1.2

1.6

1.4

2.7

2.2

2.9

6.1

-3.5

-5

.8

0.2

-2.3

3.

0 2.

5 0.

2 3.

3

6.6

7.0

14.0

7.

5 3.

0 3.

2 n

0

15

.3

3.4

n 5 c $! 5 8 i

3.0

1.1

2.4

-0.3

4.

7 6.

2 n

3.

0 0”

1.6.

-0

.8

0.0

1.8

6.6

-4.0

4.

7

Sour

ce: 1

970

3 pe

rcen

t and

198

0 an

d 19

90 5

per

cent

US.

Cens

us e

xtra

cts

Not

e: T

he la

bor

mar

ket n

onpa

rtici

patio

n ra

te r

efer

s to

the

frac

tion

of t

he p

opul

atio

n th

at i

s no

t en

rolle

d, e

mpl

oyed

, or

enlis

ted

in th

e w

eek

prec

edin

g ce

nsus

enu

mer

atio

n an

d th

at h

as n

ot w

orke

d in

the

prio

r 15

mon

ths.

a’’R

ecen

t imm

igra

nts’

‘ ref

ers

to im

mig

rant

s w

ho a

rriv

ed w

ithin

zer

o to

fiv

e ye

ars

of th

e ce

nsus

.


compared to the behavior of native Mexi- cans and native other Hispanics. These Hispanic populations are important parts of recent immigrant arrival flows. Hence, the base group used for comparison does matter.

Considering the base group may atten- uate but does not purge the apparent decline in labor market attachment of prime- age immigrant arrivals from the 1960s to the 1980s. Rather than comparing the increase in the labor market nonparticipation rate of recent immigrants to the increase of all natives, compare it to the increase of a demographically similar group of natives. If the native population ethnic- race composition were identical to that of immigrants aged 25 to 44 who arrived between 1965 and 1970, the 1970 native labor market nonparticipation rate would be 2.9 percent rather than the 2.3 percent shown in table 3. Similarly, if the native population ethnic-race composition were identical to that of the 1990 recent arrival cohort the 1990 native labor market nonparticipation rate would be 6.8 percent rather than the 5.1 percent shown in table 3. Hence, the increase in the labor market nonparticipation rate of a demographically similar group of natives from 1970 to 1990 would be 3.9 percentage points rather than the actual native increase of 2.8 percentage points. Yet, the labor market nonparticipation rate of recent prime-age immigrants rose 5.1 percentage points from 1970 to 1990. Thus, no matter how one accounts for "period effects," the economic inactivity of prime-age immigrant arrivals has increased over the past 20 years.

IV. PROBIT ANALYSIS OF LABOR MARKET IDLENESS

Probit analysis can answer the question of whether differences in the observable characteristics of immigrant arrivals can account for the unadjusted trends in labor market idleness depicted in section 111. A number of observable personal characteristics determine the likelihood of being

persistently isolated from the world of work and school (see, for example, Have- man and Wolfe, 1994; and Fry, 1995). The multivariate analysis reveals whether statistically significant differences in economic idleness between arrival cohorts remain after controlling for relevant observ- ables.

The parametric analysis employed to analyze the cohort effects is virtually identical to the method that Borjas and Trejo (1991) and Borjas (1995b) use to investi- gate immigrant households' usage of cash welfare. The observations from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 Census data extracts are pooled and the probability of being a labor market nonparticipant (P,) is modelled as following a probit specification:

where F-l(Pi) is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function. Pi is the probability that the person is not currently employed, enrolled, or enlisted and has not worked in the past 15 months; Xi is a vector of control variables that include age and age squared; Ci is a vector of dummy variables indicating the calendar year of immigrant arrival (set equal to zero for natives); yi is a quadratic in years since migration (also set equal to zero for natives); and Di,80 and Di,90 are the census dummy variables indicating an observa- tion from the 1980 census and 1990 census, respectively. The key parameters of inter- est here are the coefficients of the immigrant arrival dummies, which capture the differences in the extent of labor market idleness across immigrant cohorts at the time of arrival. A key assumption permit- ting the identification of the cohort effects is that the period effect on labor market idleness is the same for immigrants and natives.


Pooling the 1990,1980, and 1970 Census cross sections allows the analysis to track the progress of virtually the same cohort of immigrants and natives over time. This disentangles the fixed cohort qualities from assimilation effects. To operationa- lize this procedure for studying well-de- fined age groups, the age ranges from the three pooled cross sections differ. In order to examine the behavior of young adults, males aged 20 to 24 in the 1970 data extract are pooled with males aged 20 to 24 and aged 30 to 34 in the 1980 extract and males aged 20 to 24,30 to 34, and 40 to 44 in the 1990 extract. Similarly, the sample for the study of prime-age men consists of 25 to 44 in the 1970 extract, 25 to 54 in the 1980 extract, 25 to 64 in the 1990 extract. (The 1990 and 1980 Censuses do not identify the year of arrival for immigrants who arrived before 1950, so years since migration are unknown for immigrants who arrived before 1950. The sample thus omits pre-1950s immigrants in the 1990 and 1980 cross sections.)

Since the interpretation of probit coefficients is opaque, tables 5 and 6 display the “marginal effects” or mean probability de- rivatives for selected regressors. The marginal effect is the change in the probability of labor market nonparticipation due to a unit change in the regressor. Column (1) includes the minimalist set of controls, only age and age squared. Moving across the columns in tables 5 and 6 adds succes- sively more controls to the probit. Column (5)’s specification includes 20 control variables.

Column (1) simply repackages the infer- ences from the summary statistics. Since the base group is all natives, the immigrant arrival dummy’s marginal effect indicates the effect upon labor market idleness relative to natives of the same age. For both young aduits and prime-age men, column (1)’s t-ratios indicate statistically significant cohort effects for most arrival cohorts. Upon arrival, immigrants are more likely to be idle than are natives.

Among young adults, improving cohort quality is apparent over time. Young adults arriving in the 1980s are less likely to be idle than are pre-1970 young adult arrivals when compared to similarly aged natives. Opposed to this, men aged 25 to 44, in the 1980s arrival cohorts are more likely to be estranged from the labor market than are those in pre-1970 arrivals (table 6). These differences are statistically significant for both age groups.

Column (1) documents statistically significant differences in the unadjusted extent of idleness across immigrant arrival cohorts. Columns (2) through (5) of tables 5 and 6 pursue whether these differences persist after introducing relevant observ- ables. Notice that the sample size de- creases with column (3)’s added controls. The added controls include a battery of dummy variables characterizing the respondent’s household structure. Hence, the sample is restricted to men residing outside of group quarters. The appendix shows the formal statistical results of several modifications to the sample exclusion procedures: (i) restricting the sample to males who do not reside in group quarters, (ii) eliminating from the sample immigrants who were born in ”refugee-sending nations,” and (iii) eliminating from the sample immigrants who arrived after 1969 and are above the age of 44.

Examining column (5)’s cohort effects reveals that statistically significant cohort effects remain. That is, immigrants upon arrival are significantly more likely to be idle than are demographically similar natives. Due to the extensive controls included, they are more likely to be idle than are natives of the same educational attainment, of the same ethnic-race group, and of similar household structure. The rising labor market attachment of immigrant young adults in the 1980s relative to pre- 1970 immigrants apparent in column (1) remains after including controls. Introduc- ing controls does reverse the apparent decline in labor market attachment of prime-


TABLE 5 Marginal Effects on the Probability of Labor Market Nonparticipation, Males Aged 20-24

(T-Ratio in Parentheses)

d P / ax Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1985-90 Arrivals

1980-84 Arrivals

1975-79 Arrivals

1970-74 Arrivals

1965-69 Arrivals

1960-64 Arrivals

1950-59 Arrivals

Pre-1950 Arrivals

Years-Since-Migration

(Year s-Since-Migration)’

Age

A g 2

1990 Census

1980 Census

Age-at-arrival

Includes 4 Educ Dummies Includes added Controls Includes 8 Ethnic-Race

Dummies Sample Size Log Likelihood

0.0078 (5.64) 0.0083

(3.69) 0.0153

(7.85) 0.0133

(4.57) 0.0274

(8.40) 0.0182

(4.30) 0.0163

(3.23) 0.0562

(4.85) -0.0063

0.0001

-0.0031

0.0001 (7.18) 0.0242

0.0162 (7.98)

(-22.3)

(16.2)

(-6.32)

(11.1)

-

No No

No 364,464 -84239

0.0011 (0.86) 0.0050

(2.39) 0.0151

(8.24) 0.0142

(5.27) 0.0316

0.0309 (7.80) 0.0357

(7.56) 0.0751

(6.85)

(10.4)

-0.0069

0.0002 (18.7) -0.0011

(-2.31) 0.0000

(3.89) 0.0274

0.0186 (9.79)

(-26.1 )

(13.4)

-

Yes No

No 364,464 -80848

0.0187

0.0206

0.0269

0.0248

0.0351

0.0304 (9.71) 0.0291

(7.74) 0.0530

(6.31)

(18.1)

(12.5)

(18.5)

(11.6)

(14.8)

-0.0050

0.0001

0.0011 (2.76) 0.0000

(0.34) 0.0083

(4.99) 0.0082

(5.39)

(-23.8)

(17.5)

-

Yes Yes

No 338,389 -57333

0.0281

0.0269

0.0351

0.0344

0.0445

0.0412

0.0405

0.0628 (7.78)

(27.1)

(16.7)

(24.6)

(16.6)

(19.3)

(13.5)

(11.1)

-0.0046

0.0001

0.0006 (1.51) 0.0000 (1.11) 0.0097

(5.99) 0.0079

(5.36)

(-23.1)

(17.3)

-

Yes Yes

Yes 338,389 -56316

0.0177 (6.83) 0.0171

(6.21) 0.0259

0.0260 (9.15) 0.0370

0.0347

0.0354 (9.26) 0.0600

(7.44) -0.0044

0.0001

0.0004 (1.18) 0.0000

(0.94) 0.0113

(6.82) 0.0087

(5.86) 0.0004 (4.36)

Yes Yes

Yes 338,389

(10.2)

(12.8)

(10.2)

(-21.5)

(17.0)

-56306

Notes: Derived from probit estimates. Each probit included a constant. The marginal effects d P / d X are evaluated at the sample means of the explanatory variables. The “added Controls” refers to a battery of dummy variables on living arrangements (i.e., married [not separated], residing in a related male-headed household, and residing in a related female-headed household), a dummy variable for work disability status, and household income net of the respondent’s earnings.


TABLE 6 Marginal Effects on the Probability of Labor Market Nonparticipation, Males Aged 25-44

(T-Ratio in Parentheses)

d P / d X

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1985-90 Arrivals

1980-84 Arrivals

1975-79 Arrivals

1970-74 Arrivals

1965-69 Arrivals

1960-64 Arrivals

1950-59 Arrivals

Pre-1950 Arrivals

Years-Since-Migra tion

(Years-Since-Migra tion)’

Age

Age2

1990 Census

1980 Census

Age-at-arrival

Includes 4 Educ Dummies

Includes a d d e d Controls

Includes 9 Eth ic-Race Dummies

Sample Size

Log Likelihood

0.0133

0.0056 (3.44) 0.0101

(6.82) -0.0012

(-0.56) 0.0068

(2.95) 0.0040

(1.47) -0.0011

(-0.36) 0.0029

(4.60)

(12.3)

-0.0060 (31.3)

0.0001 (27.6) -0.0094

0.0001

0.0464

0.0378

(-45.1)

(59.3)

(32.1)

(28.3) -

No No

No 775,091 -189816

0.0115

0.0049 (3.24) 0.0142

0.0038 (1.95) 0.0174

(8.06) 0.0197

(7.62) 0.0167

(5.60) 0.0481

(8.08) -0.0068

0.0002 (32.8) -0.0082

0.0001

0.0599

0.0461

(11.2)

(10.2)

(-38.3)

(-41.6)

(53.8)

(43.5)

(36.5) -

Yes No

No

775,091 -183076

0.0271

0.0232

0.0291

0.0230

0.0307

0.0302

0.0272

0.0425 (9.30)

(36.4)

(20.9)

(28.4)

(15.9)

(19.3)

(15.7)

(12.2)

-0.0048

0.0001 (30.8) -0.0044

0.0001

0.0301

0.0261

(-36.8)

(-29.9)

(42.2)

(27.9)

(26.6) -

Yes Yes

No 748,755 -127493

0.0327

0.0275

0.0344

0.0303

0.0383

0.0392

0.0370

0.0526

(43.8)

(25.1)

(33.9)

(21.3)

(24.5)

(20.8)

(16.8)

(11.8)

(-35.7)

(29.7)

-0.0045

0.0001

-0.0046

0.0001

0.0300

0.0252

(-32.5)

(44.6)

(28.3)

(26.3) -

Yes Yes

Yes

748,755 -125885

0.0359

0.0304

0.0373

0.0330

0.0410

0.0417

0.0393

0.0540

(22.2)

(17.6)

(22.6)

(17.5)

(20.8)

(19.0)

(16.2)

(12.0) -0.0046

(-35.6) 0.0001

-0.0046

0.0001

0.0296

0.0251

(29.8)

(-31.9)

(44.6)

(27.7)

(26.0) -0.0001 (-2.22)

Yes

Yes

Yes

748,755 -125883

Notes: Derived from probit estimates. Each probit included a constant. The marginal effects dP / d X are evaluated at the sample means of the explanatory variables. The “added Controls” refers to a battery of dummy variables on living arrangements (i.e., married [not separated], residing in a related male-headed household, and residing in a related female-headed household), a dummy variable for work disability status, and household income net of the respondent’s earnings.


age male immigrants. Column (5) of table 6 shows that prime-age 1980s immigrant arrivals are less likely to be idle than are demographically similar immigrants who arrived before 1970. Simply adding education controls [column (211 substantially in- creases the effect associated with arrival before 1970.

V. CONCLIJSIONS

Following Borjas’s (1992) finding that the quality of successive waves of immigrants to the United States deteriorated from World War I1 to 1980 along important dimensions, economists are studying the economic traits of 1980s immigrants compared with earlier arrivals. The analysis here focuses on 1980s immigrants’ ability to engage in productive endeavors-that is, it focuses on immigrants’ success in landing opportunities to acquire human capital through either job market experience or school enrollment. The trait of success in obtaining some productive activity is far from universal. Today, one out of 20 prime-age native men is neither working nor enrolled and has not worked in the prior 15 months. The methodology is straightforward, stressing unadjusted differences across immigrant arrival cohorts. The methodology is defensible since, as Borjas and Trejo (1991) and Blau (1992) ob- serve, what matters for policy purposes are the unadjusted differentials between immigrants and natives and not compari- sons of demographically similar immigrants and natives.

This investigation presents a rather dim view of a set of abilities possessed by nonelderly male immigrants arriving in the 1980s. Compared with immigrants arriving in the 1960s, today’s new arrivals appear less likely to pursue productive activities and less likely to avoid prolonged pe- riods of idleness. Fortunately, the decline in economic activity surfaces exclusively in increased labor market withdrawal and not in the form of an increased propensity to be institutionalized, so it does not ap-

pear that today‘s immigrants are imposing greater costs on the public fisc via the penal system. Nonetheless, relative to 1960s arrivals, today’s immigrants are en- larging the dependent population. Borjas’s work suggests that they are increasing demands on public resources via the cash welfare system. One caveat is that this investigation explicitly eschews trends among older men. An examination of the differences in retirement behavior across immigrant arrival cohorts seems war- ranted.

Recalling table 1, speculating on expla- nations for the decline in relative employment among nonelderly recent immigrants since the 1960s is easy. On the labor market demand side, recent immigrant workers were disproportionately concen- trated in manufacturing and durable manufacturing until the 1980s. Thus, the her- alded decline in manufacturing appears a likely candidate. In addition, Juhn (1992) asserts that in the early 1970s a decline developed in the relative demand for high school dropouts, manifested in a large relative employment decline among the less- educated. Table 1 documents that, at least since the 1960s, immigrant arrivals are more likely than natives to be high school dropouts. Thus, the educational characteristics of immigrant arrivals also may help explain their relative employment decline. On the supply side, the rising generosity of disability payments during the 1970s is credited with inducing labor market withdrawal. Since newly arrived immigrants are ineligible for social security disability payments, this factor would work to increase the relative employment of immigrant arrivals. A more complete explana- tion would entail examining the relative supplies of immigrant arrivals and natives and their industrial and regional distribution.

In conclusion, this investigation and others suggest a decline in the economic attainments of immigrants relative to pre- vious generations. Immigrant flows ap-


pear increasingly ill-suited to succeed in the U.S. labor market. The entry criteria that have produced these flows have remained basically unchanged since the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. While contemplating the social costs and benefits of the status quo, immigration policymakers should realize that the labor market skills of immigrant flows are increasingly out-of-touch with the employment and schooling opportunities present in the U.S. economy. As a re- sul t , nonelder ly immigrants likely a re placing increased demands on the scarce fiscal resources devoted to job placement, education and training, and income main- tenance, a s well as on the private resources of immigrants’ sponsors.

APPENDIX

This appendix presents the statistical results of several alterations to the sample utilized in the text. The sample underlying table 6 includes all men aged 25 to 44. Table A1 presents the marginal effects of the minimal probit specification. Compare its results with column (1) of table 6. Column (1) of table A1 shows the marginal effects when the sample is restricted to men residing outside of group quarters. Em- ploying this restricted sample produces few changes.

The text explains that the synthetic cohort analysis pools men aged 25 to 44 in the 1970 Census with men aged 25 to 54 in the 1980 Cen-

sus and men aged 25 to 64 in the 1990 Census. This procedure enables the analyst to track the progress of an immigration cohort as it ages. It also systematically includes older immigrants for cohorts who arrived after 1970. In order to see if this biases the estimates of the fixed cohort effects, column (2) of table A1 shows the results when the sample omits immigrants aged 44 years and over who arrived after 1969. Again, the pattern of estimated cohort effects is nearly identical to that in table 6.

Finally, the Census questionnaire does not reveal the immigrant’s present immigration status nor immigration status upon arrival. Fix and Passel (1994) and Borjas (1995b) proxy for arrival as a refugee by identifying immigrants who originated in countries that are refugee generating nations. These refugee generating nations send a substantial number of refugees to the United States, and a large percentage of authorized entrants from these countries enter as refugees. Herein, an immigrant originated in a refugee sending country if he was born in Af- ghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Hungary, Iraq, Laos, Poland, Romania, Soviet Union, Thailand, or Vietnam. Column (3) of table A1 reports the marginal effects when the sample omits immigrants who originate from refugee-sending countries. The pattern of cohort effects reported in column (3) is markedly different than that in table 6. Among “non-refugees,” nearly all immigrant cohorts upon arrival are not statistically different from natives in the estimated de- gree of labor market idleness. These results suggest that non-refugees may not have experienced a decline in immigrant labor market attachment since the 1960s.

FXY: HAS THE QUALITY OF IMMIGRANTS DECLINED? 69

TABLE A1 Probit Analysis of Labor Market Nonparticipation, Males Aged 25-44, Using

Alternative Sample Inclusion Criteria (T-Ratio in Parentheses)

d P / d X

Variable (1) (2) (3)

1985-90 Arrivals

1980-84 Arrivals

1975-79 Arrivals

1970-74 Arrivals

1965-69 Arrivals

1960-64 Arrivals

1950-59 Arrivals

Pre-1950 Arrivals

Years-Since-Migra tion

(Years-Since-Migra ti,x-d2

Age

Age2

1990 Census

1980 Census

Age-at-arrival

Includes 4 Educ Dummies Includes added Controls Includes 9 Ethnic-Race Dummies Sample Size Log Likelihood

0.0121

0.0041 (2.70)

0.0067 (4.72)

(-0.67)

0.0063 (2.95)

0.0035 (1.38)

-0.0003 (-0.12)

0.0275 (4.84)

-0.0049

0.0001 (24.1)

-0.0084

0.0001

0.0374

0.0287

(11.9)

-0.0013

(-27.5)

(-43.2)

(58.3)

(27.6)

(22.9) -

No No No

748,755

-162649

0.0105 (8.58)

0.0198 (1.11)

0.0096 (6.19)

-0.0012 (-0.52)

0.0032 (1.37)

0.0003 (0.10) -0.0042

(-1.30)

0.0244 (3.98)

-0.0055

0.0001 (24.6)

-0.0088

0.0001

0.0452

0.0365

(-27.1)

(-41.0)

(53.9)

(31.7)

(27.6) -

No No No

723,506

-173426

0.0003 (0.27)

-0.0173 (-9.54)

-0.0012 (-0.75)

-0.0050 (-2.30)

0.0029 (1.19)

0.0014 (0.50)

-0.0033 (-1.02)

0.0241 (3.71)

-0.0053

0.0001 (22.9)

-0.0100

0.0001

0.0456

0.0366

(-26.3)

(-46.9)

(60.0)

(32.0)

(27.5) -

No No No

715,895

-171669

Notes: Derived from probit estimates. Each probit included a constant. The marginal effects dP / d X are evaluated at the sample means of the explanatory variables. Column (1) excludes men residing in group quarters. Column (2) excludes immigrants who are older than 44 and arrived after 1969. Column (3) excludes "rehgees."


REFERENCES

Blau, Francine D., “The Fertility of Immigrant Women: Evidence from High-Fertility Source Countries,” in Immigration arid the Work Force: Economic Con- sequences for the United States and Source Areas, 1st ed., George J. Borjas and Richard B. Freeman, eds., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.,

Borjas, George J., “National Origin and the Skills of Immigrants in the Postwar Period,” in Immigra- tion and the Work Force: Economic Consequences f i r the United States and Source Areas, 1st ed., George J. Borjas and Richard B. Freeman, eds., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1992, 17-47.

, “Assimilation and Changes in Cohort Quality Revisited: What Happened to Immigrant Earnings in the 198Os?” Journal $Labor Economics, 13:2, April 1995a, 201-245.

, ”lmmigration and Welfare, 1970-1990,” Re- search in Lnbor Economics, XIV, 1995b, 251-280.

Borjas, George J., and Stephen J. Trejo, “Immigrant Par- ticipation in the Welfare System,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 442, January 1991, 195- 211.

Butcher, Kristin F., and Anne Morrison Piehl, Immigra- tion and Incarceration, Mimeo, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass., October, 1995.

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel, Immigration and Im- migrants: Setting the Record Straight, The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C., May, 1994.

Fry, &chard, Labor Market Participation oflmmigrant and Native Men, Mimeo, Division of Immigration Pol- icy & Research, U S . Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., March, 1995.

Funkhouser, Edward, How Much of Immigration Assim- ilation is Related fo English Language Acquisition, Mimeo, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., 1995.

Funkhouser, Edward, and Stephen J. Trejo, “The Labor Market Skills of Recent Male Immigrants: Evi- dence from the Current Population Survey,” In- dustrial and Labor Relations Review, 484, July 1995,

Haveman, Robert, and Barbara Wolfe, Economic Inac- tivity o f Young Adults: A n Intergenerational Analy- sis. Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Working Paper #107, March, 1994.

Juhn, Chinhui, “Decline of Male Labor Market Partic- ipation: The Role of Deching Market Opportu- nities,’’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, February

Mare, Robert D., “Changes in Educational Attainment, School Enrollment, and Skill Levels,” in Social and Economic Trends in the 198Os, 1st ed., Reynolds Far- ley, ed., Vol. I, Russell Sage, New York, 1994.

Passel, Jeffrey S., and Michael Fix, ”Immigrants and Social Services,” Migration World, XMI:4, 1994,

Welch, Finis, ”The Employment of Black Men,” Iournal of Labor Economics, 8:1, January 1990, 526-74.

1992, 93-133.

792-811.

1992, 79-12],

22-25.

has the quality of immigrants declined? evidence from the labor market attachment of immigrants and...

Documents