1 

Immigrant‐NativeSubstitutability:theRoleofLanguageAbility

EthanLewis*

DartmouthCollegeandNBER

December2012

 

 

Abstract.Wageevidencesuggeststhatimmigrantworkersareimperfectlysubstitutablefornative‐bornworkerswithsimilareducationandexperience.UsingU.S.CensusesandrecentAmericanCommunitySurveydata,Iasktowhatextentdifferencesinlanguageskillsdrivethis.Ifindtheyareimportant.Iestimatethattheresponseofimmigrants’relativewagestoimmigrationisconcentratedamongimmigrantswithpoorEnglishskills.Similarly,immigrantswhoarriveatyoungages,asadults,bothhavestrongerEnglishskillsandexhibitgreatersubstitutabilityfornative‐bornworkersthanimmigrantswhoarriveolder.InU.S.marketswhereSpanishspeakersareconcentrated,Ifinda“Spanish‐speaking”labormarketemerges:insuchmarkets,thereturntospeakingEnglishislow,andthewagesofSpanishandnon‐Spanishspeakersrespondmoststronglytoskillratiosintheirownlanguagegroup.Finally,inPuertoRico,wherealmostallworkersspeakSpanish,Ifindimmigrantsandnativesareperfectsubstitutes.Theimplicationsforimmigrantpovertyandregionalsettlementpatternsareanalyzed.

JEL:J24,J31,J61Keywords:immigration,language,wages,labormarkets

                                                            *IthankStevenRaphaelandDavidCard,theeditorsoftheRussellSagevolumeImmigration,PovertyandSocioeconomicInequalityinwhichafutureversionofthispaperwillappear,andmycolleaguesatDartmouthforhelpfulcommentsandChrisBachand‐Parenteforoutstandingresearchassistance.IalsothanktheRussellSageFoundationandDartmouthCollegeforfundingthisresearch.

2 

StudieshavefoundthatthemassiveflowofimmigrantsintotheU.S.inthepastfewdecadeshas

hadlittlenegativeimpactontheaveragewagesofnative‐bornworkers(reviewsincludeBorjas,

1994,andFriedbergandHunt,1995;amorerecentarticleisOttavianoandPeri,forthcoming,

hereafter“OP”).However,manyofthesesamestudiestendtofindthatthenewarrivals

substantiallydepressedthewagesofpreviousimmigrantarrivals(Card,2001;OP).1Thefactthat

immigrantsseem,bythisevidence,nottofullycompeteinthenativelabormarketmaycontribute

totherelativelyhighratesofpovertyamongimmigrants,andunderstandingwhytheydonotmay

informpoliciesaimedatreducingimmigrantpoverty.

AplausibleexplanationforwhyimmigrantsdonotfullycompeteisthattheirlimitedEnglishskills

restrictthemtooccupationswhereEnglishskillsarelessimportant.Theabilitytospeaka

country’snativelanguageisassociatedwithhigherwages(e.g.,ChiswickandMiller,1995,2007;

Carliner,1996;DustmannandFabbri,2003;BleakelyandChin,2004;Ferrer,GreenandRiddell,

2006).Inaddition,less‐skilledimmigrantsintheU.S.appeartospecializeinoccupationswhich

requirerelativelylittlecommunication(PeriandSparber,2009),althoughfactorsbesides

immigrants’relativelackofEnglishskills(suchasagreaterwillingnesstoworkinmanualjobs)

couldcontributetothis.

Inthischapter,Iaskhowimmigrants’languageskillsaffecthowcloselytheycompetewithnative‐

bornworkers.Aswasdescribedintheintroduction,howcloselytwodifferentgroupsofworkers

(inthiscase,immigrantsandnatives)competeinthelabormarketisrevealedbyhowcloselytheir

wagesmovetogetherinresponsetochangesinthesizeofonegrouprelativetotheother.In

economicsjargon,twogroupsofworkersaredescribedas“perfectsubstitutes”iftheirwagesmove

insyncinresponsetochangesinrelativenumbers:fromthelabormarket’sperspectivetheyare

                                                            1InOP’spreferredspecification,forexample,thelargestestimatedimpactofimmigrationsince1990theycanfindontheaveragewagesofnative‐bornhighschooldropoutsis‐0.1percent,comparedto‐8.1percentforimmigrants.Muchofthemorerecentliterature(e.g.,Card,2001,2009)doesnotexamineimpactsonaveragewagesdirectly,butinsteadfocusesonthewagegapsbetweengroupsofnativeworkers.Evenmeasuredthisway,however,theimpactonless‐skillednativesisgenerallyfoundtobesmall.

3 

identical.Incontrast,twogroupsare“imperfectsubstitutes”ifanincreaseinthesizeofonegroup

relativetoasecondgrouplowerthewagesofthefirstgrouprelativetothesecond.Themore

responsiverelativewagesaretorelativesupply,thelessdirectlythesetwogroupscompeteinthe

labormarket.IntheU.S.,immigrantsandnativeswithsimilareducationandexperienceare

imperfectsubstitutes(OP).

Putanotherway,then,thischapteraskswhetherimmigrantswithstrongEnglishlanguageskills

areclosersubstitutesfornativesthanimmigrantswithpoorEnglishlanguageskills.Specifically,it

asksiftherelativewagesofimmigrants(thatis,relativetonatives’wages)whospeakEnglishwell

respondmoretochangesintherelativetotalhoursworkedbyimmigrantsthandotherelative

wagesofimmigrantswhospeakEnglishpoorly.Toestimatethisrelationship,Irelyprimarilyon

variationacrossmetropolitanareas,usingdatafromthe2000U.S.CensusofPopulationand

AmericanCommunitySurveysfrom2007‐2009(Rugglesetal.,2010).Allcomparisonsaremade

withinbroadeducationgroups(highschoolorless,morethanhighschool)thatpreviousresearch

hasfoundrepresentdistinctlabortypes(Card,2009;GoldinandKatz,2008).Thesedatacontain

self‐reportsofEnglishlanguageskills.Aslanguageskillsmaybecorrelatedwithotherfactorsthat

affectsubstitutabilitywithnatives,suchaslegalstatus,Ialsomakecomparisonsbyageatarrival

andtimeintheU.S.,exploitingthefactthatimmigrantswhoarriveintheU.S.aschildrentendto

havefarbetterEnglishlanguageskillsasadults(BleakleyandChin,2004),and,similarly,that

EnglishskillstendtorisewithtimeintheU.S.Theideaisthatlegalstatus(andotherfactors)may

haveaweakerrelationshipwithEnglishskillsacrossthesegroups.

TheabovediscussioniswrittenasifallcommunicationmusttakeplaceinEnglish,butinsome

partsoftheU.S.,Spanishisalsoanimportantlanguage.AnextremecaseisPuertoRico,whereboth

“immigrants”(whoincludeforeign‐bornfromLatinAmericancountries,aswellasU.S.bornethnic

PuertoRicans)andnativesspeakSpanish.Asafurthertestofthelanguagehypothesis,Iask

4 

whetherwagemovementsrevealPuertoRicanimmigrantsandnativestobeperfectsubstitutes.

SincePuertoRicoisusuallyconsideredtobeasinglelabormarket(e.g.,Borjas,2008),itisnot

possibletoexploitgeographicvariationinthesizeoftheimmigrantpopulation.Instead,this

analysisreliesonvariationovertimeandacrossdetailededucationandexperiencegroupsinthe

relativesizeoftheimmigrantpopulation,similartoOP,usingPuertoRicanCensusesfrom1970to

2000alongwiththe2007‐2009PuertoRicanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).Ialso

performaparallelaggregateanalysisofthecontinentalU.S.

InlessextremecasesthanPuertoRico,Spanishcanbeadominantlanguage,likeinMiamiandLos

Angeles,orprevalentifnotdominant,likeinChicagoandSanFrancisco.Ialsoconsiderwhether

thedensityofSpanishspeakersaffectshowsubstitutableSpanishspeakingimmigrantsarefor

natives.Underwhatconditionsdoesaparallel“Spanish‐speaking”labormarketdevelopinthe

area?AkeyhypothesisfromtheoryisthatitrequiresnotjustalargenumberSpanishspeakers

overall,butasufficientlyrichdistributionofskillsamongSpanishspeakers.This,forexample,

distinguishesMiami‐‐wheremajorityofbothhighlyeducatedandlesseducatedworkersspeak

Spanish‐‐fromChicago,whereSpanishspeakersaredisproportionatelylesseducated.

Nearlyalloftheresultsareconsistentwiththeviewthatlanguageskillsareanimportantsourceof

imperfectsubstitutabilitybetweenimmigrantsandnatives.Theestimatesimplythattheincrease

inthelaborsuppliedbyimmigrants(relativetonatives)since1990intheaveragemetropolitan

areaisassociatedwithabouta6percentdeclineinthehourlywageofimmigrantswithpoor

Englishlanguageskills,butonlya2percentdeclineinthewagesofimmigrantswithstrongEnglish

languageskills(eachrelativetonativeswithsimilareducationandworkexperience).Ialsofind

thatthewagesofimmigrantswhoarrivedasyoungchildrenandlongagoarelesssensitiveto

immigrantrelativesupplythanthosewhoarrivedandolderagesandrecently.Alsoconsistentwith

5 

languagedrivingimperfectsubstitutability,inPuertoRicoimmigrationisnotassociatedwitha

declineinthewagesofPuertoRicanimmigrantsrelativetoPuertoRico‐bornworkers.

WithintheU.S.,severalpiecesofevidencesuggestaparallelSpanish‐speakinglabormarket

emergesinareaswhereSpanishspeakersaresufficientlynumerous,and,inparticular,wherethe

skilldistributionofSpanish‐speakersissufficientlyrich.First,forSpanishspeakers,thewage

premiumforspeakingEnglishissmallinmarketswithaheavySpanish‐speakingpresence,

particularlythosewithaheavyeducatedSpanish‐speakingpresence.Second,aninfluxofless‐

educatedSpanishspeakersisassociatedwithalargerdeclineinthewagesofSpanish‐speaking

thannon‐Spanish‐speakingless‐educatedimmigrants.Third,aninfluxofeducatedSpanish‐

speakersisassociatedwithanincreasethewagesofSpanish‐speakingbutnotnon‐Spanish‐

speakingless‐educatedimmigrants.Thereasonthisthirdfactisrelevantisthatinstandardmodels

(liketheoneusedinChapter2)aninfluxofmoreeducatedworkersispredictedtoraisethewages

oflesseducatedworkersiftheyareinthesamelabormarket.Thus,thisthirdfactalsosuggests

Spanish‐andnon‐Spanishspeakersoperateinparallellabormarketsinthesamearea.

Thefindingsrefineourunderstandingoftheforceswhichaffectimmigrantpoverty.Previous

researchalreadysuggestedthatthewageimpactsofimmigrationwerebornedisproportionatelyby

immigrantsthemselves,(e.g.,Card2001;OP)andtheseresultssaythattheyareborneparticularly

stronglybyimmigrantswithpoorEnglishlanguageskills,whoareamongthepoorestimmigrants

(inrecentU.S.data,29percentofimmigrantswhodonotspeakEnglishwereinpoverty,compared

to15percentofimmigrantsoverall),andbySpanish‐speakingimmigrants.Theestimateshereare

consistentwiththeincreaseinimmigrationsince1990contributinganadditionalonetotwo

percentagepointstothepovertyrateofless‐educatedlow‐Englishimmigrants,andanadditional

twotofourpercentagepointstothepovertyratesofless‐educatedSpanish‐speakingimmigrants.

6 

However,povertyratesamongtheseimmigrantgroupsfelloverthisperiod,sothisresultonlysays

thatimmigrantpovertyrateswouldhavefallenmorequicklywithoutadditionalimmigration.2

I. MotivationandBackground

Itisusefultobeginwithsomebasicfactsaboutimmigrants’andnatives’languageskillsandwages.

PanelAofTable1showsaverageEnglishskillsforimmigrantsandnatives.Itwasconstructedby

combiningdatafromthe2007,2008and2009AmericanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010)

fortheworking‐ageresidentsof136highimmigrationmetropolitanareasdescribedbelow.3These

metropolitanareascontainover80percenttheimmigrantslivingintheU.S.Table1alsoshows

separatemeansbywhetherornottherespondenthasanycollegeeducation.Throughoutthe

paper,thosewithahighschooldegreeorlesswillbereferredtoas“lesseducated”andwillbea

focusoftheanalysis,astheymakeupadisproportionateshareofthoseinpoverty.

ThefirstlineofPanelAshowsthatonly46percentofimmigrantsspeakEnglish“only”or“very

well.”Incontrast,amongthenative‐born,thisnumberisover98percent(lowerhalfoftable).Toa

usefulfirstapproximation,U.S.nativesarefluentinEnglish,whereasonlyhalfofimmigrantsare.

Thelatterrisesto68percentifyouincludeimmigrantswhosaytheyspeakEnglish“well”(butnot

“verywell”).BythisbroadermeasureofEnglishproficiency,abouthalfofimmigrantswithout

collegeareproficientinEnglish,and90percentofimmigrantswithcollegeeducationareproficient

inEnglish(columns2and3).

                                                            2Althoughpovertyratesroseamongimmigrantsoverallduringthisperiod–seeintroduction–povertyratesamonglesseducatednon‐Englishspeakingimmigrantsfellfrom35to30percentbetween1990and2008,andamongSpanishspeakersfrom25to22percent.3“Workingage”isdefinedasbeingbetweenage16and65andwithatleastoneyearof“potentialworkexperience”whichmeansbeingoldenoughtohavespenttimeoutsideofschoolgivennormalprogressionthroughschool.

7 

Spanishspeakerswillalsobeafocusofthisstudy,andPanelBshowstheEnglishskillsofjustthose

immigrantsandnativeswhoreportspeakingSpanishathome.Spanish‐speakingimmigrantshave

belowaverageEnglishskills,withonly26percentfluentinEnglish;evenwithineducationcategory

theirEnglishskillsarebelowaverage.ThisismostlydrivenbyMexicanswhoarethelargest

immigrantgroupandwhohavepoorEnglishskills.(74percentofMexicanimmigrantsinthis

samplereportspeakingEnglishnotwellornotatall.)EvenU.S.‐bornSpanishspeakers,whomake

up7.7percentoftheworking‐agepopulation,haveimperfectEnglish.Only82percentclaimtobe

fluentinEnglish,andalmost7percentsaytheydonotspeakEnglishwelloratall.4

TheanalysisbelowalsoexploitsvariationinEnglishskillsbyimmigrants’ageatarrivalandtimein

theU.S.Figure1ashowsaveragelanguageskillsbythesecharacteristics.Thesharewhospeak

EnglishwellhasapositivemonotonicassociationwithtimeintheU.S.,risingfromhalfofthosewho

arrivedinthepastfiveyearsto90percentofthosewhohavebeenintheU.S.atleast40years(a

patternwhichmaypartlyreflectcohortdifferencesinEnglishskills).Figure1aalsoshowsthe

sharpdeclineintheshareofimmigrantswhospeakEnglishwell(asadults)inageatarrival:itis

higheramongthosewhoarrivedbeforeage10comparedtothosewhoarrivedatolderages.This

factwasexploitedinBleakleyandChin(2004)(BC)tostudytheeffectoflanguageskillsonwages.

Theyarguedthatthereisa“criticalperiod”atyoungageswhenchildrenareabletoeasilylearn

English.Below,Iaskifthereisasimilarkinkedrelationshipinthesubstitutabilityofimmigrants

fornativesbyageatarrival.5Figure1bshowsthatthiskinkedrelationshipismainlypresent

amongless‐educatedimmigrants;amongmoreeducatedimmigrants,therelationshipissmoother.6

                                                            4Thesenumbersmayunderstatenative‐bornSpanishspeakers’EnglishskillsifthereisatendencyforundocumentedMexicanstoclaimnative‐bornstatus.5NotethatIamnotfullyimplementingBC’smethodshere.AkeythingIamnotdoing,buttheydid,isdifferencingoutage‐at‐arrivalpatternsamongimmigrantsfromEnglish‐speakingcountriestoaccountforotherfactors,besideslanguage,associatedwithage‐at‐arrival.WageresponseestimatesforthesmallnumberofimmigrantsfromEnglish‐speakingcountriesweretoounreliabletoexploitthisapproach.6SplittingthesamplebyageatarrivalandeducationissomewhatproblematicgivenBC’sfindingthatarrivingasayoungchildtendstoraiseeducationalattainment.Theappropriateapproachinlightofthisistoaggregatetogethermore‐and

8 

SuggestiveevidencethatEnglishskillsareimportantforeconomicwell‐beingisshowninTable2,

whichshowsmeanloghourlywagesandpovertybynativity,education,andEnglishandSpanish

languageskills.ThefirsttworowsofPanelAshowthatevenwithineducationcategory,

immigrantstendtoearnlessthannatives.Forexample,lesseducatedimmigrantsearnonaverage

18logpoints(about18percent)lessthanlesseducatednatives.Thenextrowshows,pertinentto

theideathatlanguageskillsmightmatterforthiswagegap,thewagesofimmigrantswhoarefluent

inEnglishareverysimilartothatofnatives,includingamongless‐educatedimmigrantsand

natives.Thereisalsoasteepwagegradientinself‐reportedEnglishskills,shownbelowthat.

Thesewagedifferencestranslatetodifferencesinpovertyaswell,showninpanelB.Whereas30

percentofless‐educatedimmigrants(andeven23percentofthosewithcollegeeducation)whodo

notspeakEnglishareinpoverty,only14‐16percentofless‐educatedimmigrantswhospeak

Englishwellorverywellareinpoverty,similartopovertyratesamongless‐educatednatives.

Finally,thebottomrowsofTable2showthatSpanishspeakersareworseoffthanthetypical

immigrant,somethingtheirpoorEnglishskills(Table1)likelycontributesto.Immigrantswho

speakonlySpanish,showninthebottomrowofthetable,havewagesandpovertyratesaboutthe

sameasthetypicalnon‐Englishspeaker.

Thewagegapbetweenlesseducatedimmigrantsandnativesisanalyzeddirectlyinmultivariate

regressionsinTable3.Column(1)repeatsthefindinginfromcolumn(2)ofTable2,thatless‐

educatednativesearnabout18percentlessthanless‐educatednatives.Column(2)ofTable3

showsthatasinglecontrolvariable‐‐adummyforspeakingEnglishonlyorverywell‐‐can

accountformostofthisgap.Thecoefficientonthiscontrolsuggeststhatthereisa21percentwage

premiumtospeakingEnglishfluently,afindingwhichisconsistentwithpreviousestimatesofthe

returnstospeakingEnglishintheU.S.labormarkets(e.g,ChiswickandMiller,1995,andCarliner,

                                                                                                                                                                                                less‐educatedworkers.Becausetherestoftheanalysisissplitbyeducation,however,Iwillsplititthiswayfortheestimatesbyage‐at‐arrival.

9 

1996).ThislikelyoverstatesthecausaleffectofEnglishspeakingability,however.Column(3)

showsthattheadditionofsimpledemographicandskillcontrolsreducesthemagnitudeofthis

coefficient.EstimatesinBC’sstudyexploitingageatarrivalare,infact,consistentwithnocausal

effectofEnglishlanguageskillsonwages.Theycouldaccountforwagegapsacrossimmigrants

withvaryingEnglishlanguageskillsentirelywitheducationdifferencesacrossthesegroups.

ThelastthreecolumnsofTable3focusonthelargeminorityofAmericans‐‐bothimmigrantsand

natives‐‐whospeakSpanishathome.Column(4)showsthatthereisasomewhatsmallerreturn

toEnglishfluencyamongSpanish‐speakers,andthat,conditioningonEnglishfluency,thereisno

immigrant‐nativewagegap.MightEnglishskillsmatterlesswhentherearelargenumbersofother

Spanishspeakersinthesamelabormarket?Tofindout,column(5)addsaninteractionbetween

theEnglishfluencydummyandtheshareofthemetroarea’spopulationwhospeakSpanishat

home.Thecoefficientonthisinteractionisnegativeandsignificant,consistentwiththeideathat

Englishskillsbecomelessvaluable(forSpanishspeakers)asthesizeoftheSpanish‐speaking

populationincreases.Indeed,thiscontrolraisesthecoefficientonEnglishfluencydummybackto

itslevelinthefullsample;thatistosay,thefactthatSpanishspeakersaregeographically

concentratedfullyaccountsfortheirloweraveragereturntospeakingEnglish.Column(6)splits

theSpanish‐speakingshareintosharesamongthemore‐andless‐educatedpopulations.

Consistentwithwhatwashypothesizedintheintroduction‐‐thatitrequiresasufficientlyrich

distributionofskillstocreateaSpanish‐speakinglabormarket‐‐itisonlytheSpanish‐speaking

shareamongmoreeducatedworkerswhichisassociatedwithadiminishedimportanceofEnglish

languageskillsamonglesseducatedworkers.Totakeanextremeexample,inmarkets,likeMiami,

whereamajorityofcollegeeducatedworkersspeakSpanish(seeAppendixTableA1forother

examples)theseestimatespredicttherewillbenopremiumtoEnglishfluency.7Below,Ireassess

                                                            7Thoughthisresultisquitepreliminary,itdoesprovidesomecounterweighttotheevidencethatthetendencyforimmigrantstogeographicallyclusterisbadforthem(e.g.,Cutler,Glaeser,andVigdor,2008).Tobefairtothoseauthors,

10 

howtherelativewagesofSpanish‐speakingimmigrantsisaffectedbythedensityofSpanishand

Englishspeakersinthelabormarket,usingtheestimationframeworkIdescribenow.

II. TheoryandDerivationofanEstimationEquation

AstartingpointforasimpletheoryofhowlanguageskillsmatterintheU.S.labormarketisthe

notionthatamongthosewithotherwisesimilarskills,thosewhocannotcommunicateinEnglish

well(hereafter,“speak”Englishforshort)imperfectlysubstituteforworkerswhodo;theformer

mightnotbeveryeffectiveinoccupationswhichrequirealotofcommunication,forexample(Peri

andSparber,2009).Forsimplicity,imagineworkerscanbesharplydividedintothosewhocanand

cannotspeakEnglish,indexedwithj=1andj=0,respectively.Ifthesetwotypesareimperfectly

substitutable,thewagepremiumtobeingabletospeakEnglishwilldeclineintherelativenumber

ofworkerswhospeakEnglishandwhodonot,whichIcapturewiththefollowingrelationship:

(1) 1010 lnln LLbaww

Ljisthenumberofworkersandwjisthewageoflanguagetypejworkers,andaandbarepositive

constants.bmeasuresthedegreeofimperfectsubstitutability:itwillbezeroifthosewhocanand

cannotspeakEnglishareperfectsubstitutes.8Inprinciple,(1)couldbeestimatedusingvariation

acrosslabormarketsandovertimeintherelativenumberofworkerswhospeakEnglish“only,”

“verywell”or“well”asaproxyforL1andtheremainingworkersasaproxyforL0.Inordertobe

                                                                                                                                                                                                though,theiranalysisisattheneighborhood,ratherthanmarketlevel.Immigrantsegregationandlanguageisolationarealsoanalyzedinchapter4ofthisvolume.8(1)fallsoutofacapital‐neutralsingle‐goodnestedCESproductionfunctionrepresentationoftheeconomy,wheretheinnermostnestcontainsworkerswithandwithoutEnglishskillsinthiscase,similartotheframeworkusedinchapter2.Inthisinterpretation,thecoefficientbrepresentsaninverse“elasticityofsubstitution”betweenlanguagetypes,and“a”representsademandshifterwhichisafunctionoffactorshareandproductivityparametersembeddedintheproductionfunction.Other,moregeneral,functionalformsarepossible,butthisCES‐derivedapproachiscommon(e.g.,OP;RaphaelandSmolensky,2008).

11 

consistentwithpriorestimatesoftheimpactofimmigrationonwages,however,itisusefulto

translate(1)intosomethingwhichdirectlyinvolvesimmigrantsandnatives.9

Todoso,firstrecallthatnearlyallnativesreportspeakingEnglishfluently.Therelativenumberof

non‐Englishspeakersisdrivenalmostentirelybyimmigration,and,inpractice(demonstrated

below)movesalmostone‐for‐one(inpercentterms)withtherelativenumberofimmigrants.

Mathematically, NF LLcLL lnln 10 ,whereLFandLNare,respectively,thenumberof

foreign‐bornandnative‐bornworkers.Imposingthislinearapproximationon(1),wehavethat:

(1’) NF LLbaww lnln 10

Totranslatethelefthandsideintothewagesofimmigrantsandnatives,firstnotethatsinceall

nativesareassumedtospeakEnglishwecanimposewN=w1.(Inpractice,below,nativeswho

reportimperfectEnglishwillbedroppedfromthewagesample.)Asforimmigrants’wages,the

analysiswillexplorevariationacrossgroupsofimmigrantwithvaryingEnglishability.In

particular,Iwilllookacrossthetenyear“age‐at‐arrival”andfiveyear“yearsinU.S.”categories

showninFigure1(inadditiontodirectlyacrosstheEnglishlanguageskillcategoriesshownin

Tables1and2).Sosupposegindexesthesedifferentcategoriesofimmigrants,andfractiongof

groupgspeaksEnglish.IcanwritethemeanlogwageofgroupgimmigrantsaslnwFg=glnw1+

(1‐g)lnw0+g,wheregrepresentssourcesofimmigrant‐nativewagegapsotherthanEnglish

skills(forexample,ethnicdiscriminationorlegalstatus.)Translatingthisintoaimmigrant‐native

wagegap:

                                                            9Anotherpotentialreasontodosoisevidencethatself‐reportedmeasuresoflanguageskillsarenotreliable(DustmanandvanSoest,2001,2002;DustmannandFabbri,2003).Despitethis,theresultsbelowaresimilarlystrongwhenusingself‐reportedEnglishskillsdirectly,suggestingthattheyareatleastreliableenough(attheaggregatelevel)tobeuseful.

12 

gg

gg

gggNFg

ww

ww

wwwww

10

10

101

ln1

lnln1

lnln1lnln

Substituting(1’)intothisproduces

(2) gNF

ggNFg LLbaww ln1ln

Theintercept,ag,isacombinationofconstants.(2)impliesthatamongotherwisesimilar

immigrantsandnatives,thesensitivityoftherelativewagesofforeignworkerstochangesin

foreignrelativesupplyisdiminishingintheshareofforeignworkersspeakEnglish.Forexample,

immigrantswhoarriveaschildrentendtohavebetterEnglishskillsthanthosewhoarriveas

adults,andso(2)impliesthattherelativewagesofthosewhoarriveaschildrenshouldrespond

lesstoimmigrantinflowsthanimmigrantswhoarriveasadults.

Thissimplemodelleavesoutseveralthings.First,accordingtothemodel,immigrantswithperfect

English,g=1,areperfectsubstitutesfornatives;theirrelativewagesareinsensitivetoimmigrant

relativesupply.Animportantsimplificationusedtoderive(2)wasthatothersourcesofimmigrant‐

nativewagegaps(g)areunrelatedtoimmigrantrelativesupply.Ifthisisnotthecase,theneven

fluentimmigrants’relativewagesmaybesensitivetothenumberofimmigrantsrelativetonatives.

Thismayalsobiasestimateof(2),anissuewhichwillbediscussedfurtherbelow.

Second,thismodelassumesthatEnglishskillsareequallyimportantforalljobs‐‐the“b”in(1)isa

constant.10AsitisplausibleEnglishskillsaremoreimportantinhigh‐skilljobs,theestimates

belowallowtheeffectstovarybytheeducationleveloftheworker.

                                                            10ThiswouldbeofgreatconcernonlyifthevariationinthewageresponseacrossimmigrantgroupsweredrivenbyvariationintheimportanceofEnglishratherthantheEnglishskillsoftheimmigrantsinthegroup‐‐thatis,variationin“b”noting.

13 

Finally,thissimplemodelcanalsoonlypartlyaccommodatethefactthatinsomepartsoftheU.S.,

Spanish,notEnglish,isthedominantlanguage.InPuertoRico,wherebothimmigrantsandnatives

speakSpanish,(2)appliesandimpliesimmigrants’relativewagesshouldnotrespondtothe

relativenumberofimmigrants.InmarketswithamixofSpanish‐speakingandEnglish‐speaking

workers,itisnotclearwhatwillhappen,butsometheoriesaresuggestive.AccordingtoLang’s

(1986)theoryoflanguagediscrimination,wagesarelowerforSpanish‐speaking(orgenerally,non‐

Englishspeaking)immigrantlaborersthannativesbecausetheybearthecostoftrainingabilingual

supervisor;however,whereSpanishisspokenbyamajorityofworkers(asitisinsomeU.S.

markets),thesignofwagegapwithnativesreverses.InPeriandSparber(2009),less‐educated

immigrantsaresegregatedintomanualoccupationsbecauseoftheirinferior(English)

communicationskills.Thoughtheydidnotdiscussitinthepaper,onemightimaginethatwitha

largeenoughdensityoffellowSpanishspeakers,itmightbepossibleforSpanishspeakerstohave

accesstoafullrangeofoccupations.11Inboththeories,havingenoughskilled(Lang’s

“supervisors”)oreducatedSpanishspeakerswouldbeimportantforaseparate“Spanish”labor

markettoemerge,whichissupportedbypreliminaryevidenceinTable3.Thiswillbeevaluated

belowbyaddingtermsto(2)measuringthesizeoftheSpanish‐speakinglaborpoolbyeducation.

III. EstimationandIdentification

Themainestimatesof(2)willusevariationacrossskillgroupsandmetropolitanareasinthe

relativeaggregatehoursworkedoftheimmigrantpopulation,asfollows:

(3) gictNict

Fictggit

Nict

Fgict HHww lnln

                                                            11Inparticular,onemightassumetheoutputofPeriandSparber’sproductionfunctionmadewithSpanish‐speakingworkerswasperfectlysubstitutablefortheoutputmadewithEnglish‐speakingworkers.

14 

whereiindexestwoeducationgroups(highschoolorless,morethancollege)andcindexes

metropolitanareas,andHrepresentstheaggregatehoursofthespecifiedgroup.gistheestimate

of‐(1‐g)bin(2)whichisexpectedtobenegativeandtobesmallerinmagnitudeforimmigrants

withstrongerEnglish‐languageskills.(3)willbeestimatedbothjointlyandseparatelyby

educationgroup.

Allestimatesof(3)includetime‐varyingeducationgroupcontrols,git,which,liketheslope,willbe

allowedtovaryacrossimmigrantgroups,g.Thesecontrolscaptureeconomy‐widechangesinthe

wagestructure.Thedependentvariablewillbecomputedasthedifferenceinthemeanlogwages

ofimmigrantsingroupgandnativeswiththesameeducation,i,inthesamemetropolitanarea,c,

andyear,t,or“cellict”forshort.12Toreducetheinfluenceofcompositionaldifferencesbetween

immigrantsandnativesonthisestimatedmeanwagegap,natives’meanwageswillbecomputed

usingweightsthatgivethem,onaverage,thesameeducationandexperienceastheimmigrantsin

groupgincellict.13(Inpractice,therawwagegapproducessimilarresults.)(3)willbeestimated

byordinaryleastsquares(thatis,unweighted)andstandarderrorswillbecomputedtoberobust

toarbitraryerrorcorrelationacrossobservationsonthesamemetropolitanarea.

Theerrortermin(3)capturesotherdeterminantsofimmigrants’relativewages.Therearetwo

broadreasonstoexpectthatitwillbecorrelatedwithimmigrants’relativehours,whichwilllead

estimatesofgtobebiased.Areaswithahighrelativedemandforsomeimmigrantsubgroup

wouldtendtosimultaneouslyhavehighrelativewagesandhoursfortheworkersinthisgroup,

therebygeneratingapositivecorrelationbetweentheerrortermandtheexplanatoryvariableand

                                                            12Thisusesthefactthat N

ictFgict

Nict

Fgict wwww lnlnln .

13Inparticular,thosewithhighschoolorlessaredividedintohighschoolcompletersandhighschooldropouts,andthosewithsomecollegeormorewillbedividedintothosewithandwithoutfouryeardegrees.Withinthesecells,workersarefurtherdividedintofive‐yearpotentialexperiencebandsupto40.Themeanofnativelogwagesarecomputedweightedbyp/(1‐p),wherepisthefractionofeachdetailededucationxexperiencexmetropolitanareaxyearcellthataregroupgimmigrants,amonggroupgimmigrantsandnativesinthatcell.(ThisweightisinteractedwiththeACSorCensussampleweight.)Cellswithnonativesornogroupgimmigrantsaredropped.

15 

leadingtoslopeestimateslessnegative.14Astandardwaytoaddressthisistousepredictable

variationinthesizeofimmigrantinflowsbasedonthelabormarketsinwhichimmigrantsfrom

differentpartsoftheworldtendtocluster(MexicansinLA,RussiansinNewYork,etc.)This

approachisdescribedintheAppendix.Inpractice,ittendstoproducesimilarresultstothe

ordinaryleastsquaresestimatesthatarepresentedbelow,suggestingthatthistypeofbiasmaynot

belarge.Inaddition,insectionIV.C.,Iwillpresentestimatesof(2)thatrelyonlyonaggregate

variation‐‐thatis,acrosseducationxexperiencegroups,similartoOP‐‐ratherthanvariation

acrosslabormarkets.Thisalsoproducessimilar,iflessprecise,estimates.

(3)isalsolikelytobebiasedbecauseimmigrantswithpoorEnglishlanguageskillstendtobe

dissimilarfromU.S.nativesinotherwayswhichaffecttheirsubstitutabilitywithnatives.For

example,thelargestgroupofimmigrantswithpoorEnglishskillsisMexicans,manyofwhomreside

intheU.S.illegally.TheirlegalstatusmayconfineMexicanstoparticularoccupations,makingit

harderforthemtocompeteheadtoheadwithnatives.Ifso,immigrantrelativehoursmaybemore

negativelycorrelatedwithlow‐thanhigh‐Englishimmigrants’relativewages,but(atbest)only

partlybecauseoftheobserveddifferenceEnglishskills.Intheabsenceofaperfectwaytoidentify

immigrantswhodifferonlyinEnglishskillsandnototherfactors(legalstatusinparticularisnot

observable),theapproachItakeistoexaminevariationacrossdifferentimmigrantsubgroups,such

asbyageatarrival.AlthoughthevariationinEnglishskillsacrossthesesubgroupsisalsolikelyto

alsobecorrelatedwithdifferencesinotherfactorswhichaffectimmigrant‐nativesubstitutability,

thehopeisthattherelationshipisnotasstrongoratleastnotassystematicacrosstheseother

subgroups.Forexample,thehopeisthatage‐at‐arrivaldoesnothavea“kinked”relationshipwith

legalstatuslikeithaswithEnglishskills.(SeeFigure1b.)Thisapproachislikelytobeonlypartially

                                                            14Theseestimatesarealsowell‐identifiedonlyifthegeographicunitsinvolvedactasclosedeconomies.U.S.evidencesuggeststhatlocallabormarketsbehavelikeclosedeconomiesinthesensethatimmigrantsdonotappearto“displace”native‐bornworkerswiththesameskills(e.g.,CardandDiNardo,2000)nordotheyhavemuchimpactonindustrymix(Lewis,2004).

16 

successful,sotheestimatesarestilllikelytostillbebiased,probablytowardsfindingthatlanguage

skillsareimportant.

III.B. Data

Datafortheregressionanalysiscomefromthe2000CensusofPopulationand2007,2008,and

2009CommunitySurveys.Thelatterthree(whicharefromRugglesetal.,2010)arecombinedinto

whatwillbereferredtoas“2008”data.Informationonhoursworkedandhourlywageswere

aggregatedtothemetropolitanareabyyearbybroadeducationgroup,asdescribedabove.

Includedinthecalculationofworkers’hourswereworkersage16to65,withpositivepotential

experience(oldenoughtobeoutofschoolgivenanormalprogressionthroughschool),livingin

oneofthe136metropolitanareasinthesample.15Thewagesampleisthesubsampleofthese

workerswhoarecurrentlyemployedwithpositivewageandsalaryearningsandzerofarmor

businessearningsinthepastyear.16Metropolitanareasweredefinedconsistentlyusing“PUMAs”

and1990metropolitanareaboundaries.

Table4presentsthe(unweighted)meansandstandarddeviationsofthesedata.Therelativelog

hoursofimmigrantsintheaverageareaisnegativebothoverallandbyeducationlevel,whichsays

immigrantsareonaverageaminorityofworkers;inthemeaneducation‐metro‐yearobservation

immigrants’hoursrepresentabout14.4percent(=e‐1.934x100)ofnatives’hours.Thereisalotof

variationacrossthesemetroareasintherelativehoursofimmigrants:thestandarddeviationis

around1,whichwillbeusefulforinterpretingthemagnitudeoftheregressionestimatesbelow.

Thetablealsoshowstheimmigrant‐nativewagegapisaround12.5percentintheaverage

metropolitanarea,andismuchlargerforlow‐Englishimmigrants,eventheonesmatchedto                                                            15Also,thoselivingingroupquarterswereexcludedfromtheanalysis.16Tobeincludedinthewagesample,native‐bornworkersalsowererequiredtoreportspeakingEnglish“only”or“verywell.”Hourlywagesabove$200andbelow$2in1999dollarswerereplacedwiththesethresholds.

17 

nativeswithsimilareducationandexperience(asthesegapsarecalculatedtodo).Thereisalotof

variationintheimmigrant‐nativewagegapacrossmetroareastobeexplained,whichIwillnow

trytodo.

IV. Results

IV.A. BasicU.S.Evidence

Table5presentsestimatesof(3).PanelAexaminestherelativewagesofallimmigrants.The‐0.04

estimateincolumn(1)saysthataoneunitincreaseinimmigrants’relativehoursisassociatedwith

a4percentdeclineinthewagesofimmigrantsrelativetonatives.Althoughaoneunitincreasein

theindependentvariablemeansapproximatelytriplingimmigrants’laborsupply,whichsounds

likealot,itisactuallyareasonablechangetoexamineasitisbothastandarddeviation(Table4)

androughlyequaltotheincreaseinthisvariablesince1990intheaveragemetropolitanarea.17In

anycase,the‐0.04responseissimilarinmagnitudetopreviousestimatesofthisrelationship,such

asOPorCard(2009).

PanelBofTable5producesseparateestimatesforthewagesofimmigrantswhoreportstrong

Englishlanguageskills‐‐immigrantswhosaytheyspeakEnglish“only,”“verywell,”or“well”‐‐and

whoreportpoorEnglishlanguageskills‐‐immigrantswhosaytheyspeakEnglish“notwell”or“not

atall.”Asexpected,therelativewagesofimmigrantswithpoorEnglisharemorenegatively

associatedtherelativepresenceofimmigrantlabor:theirwagesdecline5.7percentforaoneunit

increaseintheindependentvariable,comparedto2.2percentdeclineforimmigrantswithstronger

English.Thedifferencebetweenthetwocoefficientsisstatisticallysignificantattheonepercent

level,shownasthep‐valuelessthan0.01intherowbeneaththeseestimates.

                                                            17Intheaveragemetroarea‐educationcellinthesample,thisvariablerosefrom‐2.69to‐1.75between1990and2008.

18 

Columns(2)and(3)showestimatesseparatelybybroadeducation.PanelAindicatesthat

educatedimmigrants’wagesaremoreresponsivethanlesseducatedimmigrants’,despitethefact

thateducatedimmigrantstendtoreportsubstantiallybetterEnglishlanguageskills(Table1).This

maynotbeinconsistentwiththeimportanceofEnglish,however;itisplausiblethatlanguageskills

aremoreimportantinjobsthatrequirecollegeeducation,aviewforwhichthereissomeevidence

(Berman,Lang,andSiviner,2003).Inaddition,thedifferenceinthewageresponsesofimmigrants

withpoorandstrongEnglisharesimilarformore‐andless‐educatedimmigrants:inPanelBthe

gapincoefficientsis3.6(=0.047‐0.011)percentagepointsforless‐and3.3(=0.078‐0.045)

percentagepointsformore‐educatedimmigrants.

PanelCbreaksoutestimatesbythemoredetailedEnglishlanguageskillsshowninTables1and2.

Goingtothisdetailrequirestheexaminationofasmallernumberofmetroareas,112,thatarelarge

enoughtoobserveallimmigrantsubgroups.(Inparticular,wageearningcollegegraduateswho

reportnotspeakingEnglishatallarerare.)Thewageresponseismonotonicinself‐reported

Englishlanguageskills,bothoverallandseparatelybyeducation,andthedifferencesacrossEnglish

categoriesarestatisticallysignificant.Interestingly,thereisasignificantnegativeresponseevenin

thetopEnglishcategory,whatIreferredtoas“fluent”above.Whilesomeoftheworkersinthis

categorymaynotbetrulyfluentinEnglish,areasonableinterpretationofthisisthatthereare

factorsbesidesEnglishskillsthatmakeimmigrantsimperfectlysubstitutablewithnatives.

Figure2aexamineshowthewageresponsevariesbyageatarrivalandtimeintheU.S.Itplots

coefficientestimates(andconfidenceintervals)fromestimatesof(3)‐‐thatis,stillusingthesame

variationinimmigrantrelativelaborbybroadeducation,metropolitanarea,andyear‐‐separately

forimmigrantsinthetenyearage‐at‐arrivalcategoriesandfiveyearyearsinU.S.categoriesshown

onthefigure’sx‐axis.PanelAshowsthattheresponseofwagesbyage‐at‐arrivalfollowthesame

“kinked”patternthatself‐reportedEnglishlanguageskillsdidinFigure1a.Whileitispossiblethat

19 

otherunobservedfactorsthataffectimmigrants’substitutabilitywithnativesfollowthiskinked

pattern,thisreinforcesthedirectevidencefromEnglishlanguageskillsinTable5.Ontopofthis,

thekinkedrelationshipintheresponseappearstobelimitedtotheless‐educatedsubsamplewhere

itwasfound(Figures1band2b).ThereisalsoamonotonicrelationshipwithtimeintheU.S.

(Figure2a,panelB).

IV.B. TheEffectsofLanguageSupply

Alloftheregressionspresentedsofarhaveemployedthesameindependentvariable:thenatural

logoftheratioofimmigrants’aggregatehourstonatives’aggregatehours.InthissectionIinstead

employdirectmeasuresofthesuppliesoflanguageskills,includingasthenaturallogofthe

aggregatehoursofthosewhospeakEnglishnotwellornotatall(thosewith“poorEnglish”)to

thosewhospeakEnglishonly,verywell,orwell(thosewith“strongEnglish”).Inaddition,totry

andunderstandwhathappensinmarketswithalargenumbersofSpanishspeakers,Iwilladd

controlsfortherelativehoursofworkerswhospeakSpanishathome.

TheresultsareinTable6.Tokeepthingssimple,thetableexaminesonlyworkerswithahigh

schooleducationorless.Column(1)repeatstheestimatefromPanelAofTable5:itsaysthe

overallimmigrant‐nativelogwagegapdeclines3.4percentfora1unitincreaseinimmigrants’

relativehours.Column(2)replacesthisindependentvariablewiththeonemeasuringtherelative

hoursofthosewithpoorEnglishrelativetostrongEnglish.Thecoefficientisthesametotwo

decimalplaces.ThissupportstheargumentmadeinSectionIIthat,asapracticalmatter,the

relativesupplyofEnglishlanguageskillsmovesone‐for‐onewiththerelativesupplyofimmigrants.

Column(3)repeatstheestimatesofcolumn(2)forthesubgroupofimmigrantswhoreport

speakingSpanishathome.Theestimatedwageresponseisnearlyidenticalforthissubgroup.To

20 

investigateiftheresponsesvarywiththedensityofSpanishspeakersinthemarket,column(4)

addscontrolsfortheaggregatehoursofworkerswhospeakSpanishathomerelativetoworkers

withstrongEnglish.Thismeasureisenteredseparatelyforcollegeandnon‐collegeworkers,

followingtheresultsinTable3.Column(4)presentsweakevidencethatthereisanadditional

depressingeffectofhavingalargenumberofSpanishspeakingnon‐collegeworkersonthewages

ofnon‐collegeSpanishspeakers,inadditiontotheimpacthavingalargenumberofnon‐English

speakers.However,thisisoffsetbythepositivewageimpactofgreaterdensityofcollege‐educated

Spanishspeakingimmigrants.

Agraphicalversionofthecolumn(4)relationshipisshowninFigure3.ItplotsSpanish‐speaking

relativehoursamongworkerswithmorethanahighschooleducationversusthosewithahigh

schooleducationorless–thetwovariablesinthelowerhalfofTable6–in2008data,anddotted

linesindicatethemedianofeachvariable.Thedashedlineisnotthefittedline(althoughitisvery

close);rather,itindicatesthedividinglinebetweenareaswithabove‐andbelowaveragewagesfor

less‐educatedSpanish‐speakingimmigrants(relativetonatives)accordingtotheestimatein

column(4)(ignoringtheimpactoftheothervariable,poor/strongEnglish).18Inareasabovethe

dashedline,lesseducatedSpanish‐speakingimmigrantstendtohaverelativelyhighwages:this

includestwoCubanenclaves,MiamiandJerseyCity,otherareasinFlorida,aswellasareasonthe

Texasborder(notlabeledongraph),andRiversideandLosAngeles.Interestingly,many“new”

immigrantdestinations(Singer,2004)‐‐likeAtlanta,Charlotte,Denver,Greensboro,Portland,and

Raleigh‐‐arebelowtheline,indicatingtheMexican(or,really,anyless‐educatedSpanish‐

speaking)immigrantsthereearnbelowaveragewages.Thisisareversaloftheseareas’position

notsolongago–asimilargraphfor1990wouldshowmostofthesenewdestinationsabovethe

line.Infact,themodelincolumn(4)appliedto1990(CensusofPopulation)datapredictsthat

                                                            18Specifically,itisalinewithaslopeof0.7=0.045/0.065–theratioofthetwolowercoefficientsincolumn4–thatgoesthroughthesamplemedianofthetwovariables,whichareshownwiththedottedlinesinthefigure.Theresidualscatterplot,conditioningoutpoor/strongEnglish,isshowninAppendixFigureA1andhasthesamequalitativepatterns.

21 

MexicanimmigrantswouldhaveearnedarelativewagesevenpercenthigherinSinger’snew

destinationsthaninotherlargeareasthatwereherhistoricalimmigrantgateways.19Therelatively

highwagesmayhavebeenpartofwhatattractedMexicanstotheseareasstartinginthe1990s,

althoughotherresearchindicatesfasteremploymentgrowthwastheprimarydraw(Cardand

Lewis,2007).Overthepast20years,thewageadvantageofthesenewareasforMexicanshas

completelyerodedbecausetheSpanishinflowshavebeendisproportionatelyless‐skilled.20

TheestimatesinTable6mightadditionallybeinterpretedasindicatingthatasufficientlyrichskill

distributionofSpanishspeakersallowsaparallel“Spanish‐speaking”labormarkettoemerge

withinanarea.Toprovideadditionalevidenceforthis,column(5)showsanestimateofthesame

relationshipfornon‐Spanishspeakingimmigrantswho,inthisview,shouldnotbeaffectedbythe

densityofSpanishspeakers.ThewageboostfromcollegeeducatedSpanishspeakersisnotpresent

forthem.Alsoincolumn(5)thereisapositivecoefficientontheless‐educatedSpanish/English

hoursratiowhichnearlyoffsetsthecoefficientonpoorEnglish/Englishhours,indicatingthatan

inflowofless‐educatedSpanishspeakershaslittleoveralleffectonthewagesofnon‐Spanish

speakingimmigrants.ThisisconsistentwithSpanishspeakersworkingintheirown,parallellabor

marketwithinthearea.

IV.C. PuertoRico

                                                            19WhatIrefertoas“new”immigrantdestinationsintheSinger(2004)typographyincludeherthreecategoriesof“emerging,”“re‐emerging,”and“pre‐emerging.”Thepredictedvaluesarecomputedusingallthreevariablesincolumn(4).Anothermajorfactorinthewagedeterminationoflesseducatedworkersistheratioofcollegetonon‐collegeworkersinalabormarket(e.g.,Card,2009),butonthismeasure,newandolddestinationswereverysimilarin1990.TheactualaveragewageofSpanishspeakingimmigrantswas13percenthigherinnewthanolddestinationsin1990.20ThepatternsovertimearesimilarfornewrelativetotraditionalMexicandestinations.Idefinedas“traditional”Mexicandestinationsthetop20areasrankedonnumberofworkingageMexicansin1990.DrawingonCardandLewis(2007),Idefined15“new”MexicandestinationswithalargeresidualinflowrateofMexicansbetween1990and2008overwhatispredictedfromalinearregressionon1990Mexican(working‐agepopulation)share,andwhicharenottraditionalMexicandestinations.ThelargeareasamongthelatterareallnewdestinationsaccordingtotheSinger(2004)typography.EstimatesinTable6implythatMexicanswouldhaveearned3.5percentmoreinnewthanintraditionaldestinationsin1990,butby2008theywouldhaveearnedonepercentless.

22 

AnotherreasontoexpectthataSpanish‐speakinglabormarketemergeswithasufficientdensityof

Spanishspeakers,isthatitmustinthelimitwhereeveryonespeaksSpanish.TheU.S.containsone

labormarketwherealmostallimmigrantsandnativesspeakSpanish:PuertoRico.21Accordingto

theviewthatlanguageskillsdriveimperfectsubstitutabilitywithnatives,PuertoRicanimmigrants

shouldbeperfectsubstitutesforPuertoRicannatives:theirrelativewagesshouldnotrespondat

alltoimmigrants’relativelaborsupply.Theapproachofexaminingamarketwhereimmigrants

andnativessharealanguagewaspreviouslytakenbyCastillo,GillessandRaphael(2009)(CGR),

whoexaminedCostaRica.

SincePuertoRicoisasinglelabormarket,theanalysiscannotexploitgeographicvariationinthe

sizeoftheimmigrantpopulation.Instead,IfollowtheapproachofCGRandOPandusevariation

overtimeandacrosseducation‐experiencecells,tobedetailedbelow,inthesizerelativesizeofthe

immigrantworkforce.

ThatPuertoRicohasanon‐trivialamountofimmigrationmaynotbewellknown.Figure4shows

theshareoftheworkingagepopulationthatwasbornoutsidePuertoRico–whatIdefineas

“immigrants”forthisanalysis‐‐between1970andthepresent,brokenoutseparatelybythefive

educationcategories‐‐fouryearscollege,1‐3yearscollege,highschoolcompletion,1‐3yearshigh

school,nohighschool‐‐usedintheanalysis.ItisbasedondatafromPuertoRicanpopulation

censuses,whicharetakeninparalleltotheU.S.Census,andthe2007‐9PuertoRicanCommunity

Surveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).MostofthosebornoutsidePuertoRicoarenottrulyimmigrantsbut

areotherU.S.citizens,mostlyofPuertoRicanheritage,whowereborninthecontinentalU.S.

Figure4showsuntilrecently,about15percentofcollegeeducatedworkerscamefromoutside

PuertoRico.Theless‐educated“immigrant”shareislowerbut,untilrecently,hadbeenrising.

                                                            21PuertoRicowasnotincludedintheearlieranalysis.In1990,whichisthelastyearthequestionwasasked,97percentofthosebornoutsideand99percentofthoseborninPuertoRicoindicatedthattheyspokeSpanish.Notethatthisisabroaderlanguagemeasurethanwasusedinthepreviousanalysis,whichonlyindicatedwhetherornottherespondentspokeSpanish“athome.”

23 

TheanalysiswillexploitvariationacrossthecellsinFigure4,and,withinthese,acrossyearsof

potentialexperience,groupedintofiveyearcellsupto40.Usualweeklyhoursworkedisnot

availableinthe1970Census,sohourlywagesandaggregatehoursworkedwillbereplacedwith

weeklywagesandweeksworked.Inparticular,theestimationequationis:

(4) iktN

iktF

iktitktikNikt

Fikt WWWWww lnln

where Nikt

Fikt WWWWln representstheaggregaterelativeweeksworkedlastyearbynon‐Puerto

Ricanbornworkerswitheducationiandpotentialworkexperiencek.Estimatesof(4)controlfor

anexhaustivesetofeducationxexperience,experiencexyear,andeducationxyeardummies.22

Forcomparison,(4)willalsobeestimatedusingdataonthecontinentalU.S.,whichwillalsoserve

asanadditionalcheckonthecross‐cityresultspresentedabove.23

ResultsarepresentedinTable7,withPanelAforPuertoRicoandPanelBfortheContinentalU.S.

Column(4)showsanegativeandmarginallysignificantcoefficientof‐0.033,fortheU.S.,whichis

surprisinglysimilartotheestimatesinTable5giventhelargedifferenceinmethodology.The

estimateforPuertoRicoisnotzero,butpositiveandsignificant.Alikelyexplanationforthisthat

changesintheweeksworkedpartlyreflectslabordemand,whichmovesweeksworkedandweekly

wagesinthesamedirection.Toaddressthis,Iexploitthefactthatmuchofthevariationinthe

relativesizeoftheimmigrantworkforceinPuertoRicoisdrivenbychangesintherawnumbersof

                                                            22Allestimatesof(4)areunweighted,withstandarderrorscomputedtoberobusttoarbitraryerrorcorrelationwithineducationxexperiencecells.InthePuertoRicandata,weeksworkediscomputedforthoseaged16‐65whoarenotlivingingroupquartersandwhoareoldenoughtobeoutofschool.ThePuertoRicanwagesampleconsistsofthoseintheweekssamplewithpositivewageearnings,zerobusinessandfarmearnings,whoarenotcurrentlyenrolledinschoolandwhoreportanoccupation.23TheU.S.samplesaredefinedsimilarlytothePuertoRicanones(seepreviousnote),exceptforafewthings.First,tobeincludedinthewagesample,ratherthanreportinganoccupation,workersneedtoreportbeingcurrentlyemployed.(ThisdifferenceinmethodologyisduetothefactthatemploymentratesareverylowinPuertoRico.)Also,weeklywagesbelow10orabove10,000in1999dollarswereresettothesethresholds.Finally,thetwolowesteducationgroupsarecombinedinU.S.estimates,owingtotheverysmallnumberofnon‐highschooleducatednativesintheU.S.

24 

U.S.‐bornethnicPuertoRicansandPuertoRican‐born.Asthesereflecteducationandfertility

decisionsmadelonginthepast,theyareunlikelytobesystematicallyrelatedtopresentdemand.24

ThesizeofthesetwopopulationsiscomputedusingthecombinationofPuertoRicanandU.S.data,

whichisnecessarybecauseonethirdofthePuertoRicanbornpopulationlivesintheU.S.When

relativeweeksworkedisreplacedbytherelativepopulationsize,incolumn(2),thecoefficientis

indeednonpositiveandisclosetozero.Column(3)showsthatthisvariablemovesalmostexactly

one‐for‐onewiththeweeksworkedvariable,arelationshipthatishighlysignificant.25

Therelationshipincolumn(2)isunfortunatelyverynoisy,andFigure5showswhy.Itshowsa

scatterplotunderlyingtherelationshipincolumn(2),aswellastheU.S.relationshipincolumn(4).

ThePuertoRicanwageestimatesaremuchnoisier,asshownbythelargemeansquarederror

(“vertical”variationaroundtheline)inthePuertoRicanfigurecomparedtotheU.S.,owingtothe

muchsmallernumberofobservationsinthePuertoRicandata.

TheremainingcolumnsofTable7examineseparatelytherelativewageresponse(inthe

continentalU.S.)ofimmigrantswithpoorandstrongEnglish,measuredinthesamewayasinPanel

BofTable5.26Thismeasureisnotavailableuntil1980,andsocolumn(5)showestimates

excluding1970,whicharesmallerinmagnitudeandlessprecise.BrokenoutseparatelybyEnglish

skills,incolumns(6)and(7),thenegativeresponseislimitedtoimmigrantswithpoorEnglish.

Thoughtheseestimatesarenotprecise,theyaresimilarinmagnitudetothedifferenceinresponse

betweenhigh‐andlow‐EnglishimmigrantsthatwasfoundinTable5,around3percentagepoints.

                                                            24AlthoughdemandconditionsinPuertoRicomayinfluencetheeducationalattainmentofthePuerto‐Ricanbornpopulation,thisinfluencemaybelimitedsinceasubstantialfraction(aboutonethird)ofPuertoRicansendupinthecontinentalU.S.labormarket.25Thisimpliesthataninstrumentalvariablesestimateoftheeffectofrelativeweeksworksonrelativeweeklywages,usingthepopulationvariableasaninstrument,wouldhavethesamecoefficientasappearsincolumn(2).26Thesecolumnsexcludenative‐bornworkerswhodonotreportspeakingEnglish“only”or“verywell.”

25 

V. ImplicationsforPoverty

Whatcanwesayabouttheeffectsofimmigrationonpovertyinlightoftheseestimates?Afull

answertothisquestionrequiresestimatesoftheeffectofimmigrationonabroadersetofwage

outcomesthanwerestudiedinthischapter,butareexploredinotherresearch(Raphaeland

Smolensky,2008,2009).Chapter2explainsthisingreaterdetail,buttosimplify,themainthing

thepresentestimatesomitistheeffectimmigrationhasonwagesbyshiftingtheratioofnon‐

collegetocollegelabor.However,Card(2009)showsthisissmall(becausetheratioisrecently

similarforrecentimmigrantandnativeworkers).Ontopofthesepreviouslyestimatedeffects,the

estimatesinthischapterimplythatimmigrationhasalargerimpactonthewagesofimmigrants

withpoorEnglishlanguageskills,alreadyahighpovertygroup(Table2),anddependingon

immigrants’mixoflanguageskills,onSpanish‐speakers.

Furthermore,thewageresponsesofthesegroupscanberoughlytranslatedintoaneffecton

povertyrates,assumingallimmigrants’wagesareshifteddownbytheamountimpliedbythe

estimates.TheestimatesinbothTable7andTable5areconsistentwithaoneunitincreaseinthe

relativesupplyofimmigrantlabor‐‐again,roughlyequaltotheincreasesince1990‐‐loweringthe

wagesofimmigrantworkerswithpoorEnglishby3percentagepointsmorethanimmigrantswith

strongEnglish.Theresultingthreepercentdeclineinwages,assumingallimmigrants’incomeis

fromwages(whichisclosetotrue)would,withoutchanginghoursworked,beexpectedtodropthe

low‐Englishimmigrantsbetween100and103percentofthepovertylineintopoverty.In2008,

thisrepresentedaboutonepercentoflow‐Englishless‐educatedimmigrants.Ifyoualsoconsider

thefactthatthedeclineinwagesmightinducesomeimmigrantstoworkless,areasonable

approximationistodoublethisestimate.27Inshort,theriseinimmigrationsince1990mighthave

                                                            27Thiscomesfromassumingalaborsupplyelasticityofone(followingRaphaelandSmolensky,2009);thatistosay,thatathreepercentdeclineinhourlywagesisassociatedwithathreepercentdeclineinhoursworked,foratotalofasixpercentreductioninannuallaborincome.

26 

addedonetotwopercentagepointstothepovertyrateofimmigrantswithpoorEnglish(compared

toimmigrantswithstrongEnglish).Usingtheestimatesincolumn(4)ofTable6,thechangeinthe

supplyofSpanish,English,andotherhoursbetween1990and2008isexpectedtohavelowered

thewagesofSpanishspeakingimmigrantsbyroughly6percent(relativetonatives),which

translatessimilarlyintoanincreaseintheirpovertyratesofSpanish‐speakingimmigrantsof

roughly2to4percentagepoints.28Inpractice,povertyratesamongless‐educatedimmigrants

declinedsince1990:from35to30percentamongnon‐Englishspeakersandfrom25to22percent

amongSpanishspeakers.Theestimatesinthispaperareconsistentwiththelargeimmigrantinflux

since1990attenuatingthisdecline.

VI. Conclusions

Onbalance,theestimatesinthispapersuggestthatwhileimmigrants’imperfectEnglishlanguage

skillsmaynotbetheonlyreasonthattheyareimperfectsubstitutesfornative‐bornworkersinthe

U.S.,theyareamajorreasonforthis.UsingseveraldifferentapproachesandsamplesIhavefound

thatthewagesofimmigrantswithpoorEnglishlanguageskillstendtorespondmorenegativelyto

agreaterpresenceofimmigrantsthandothewagesofimmigrantswithstrongEnglishlanguage

skills.Abottomlineisthat,atleastamongless‐educatedimmigrants,immigrationsince1990

mighthavepushedupthepovertyratesofimmigrantswithpoorEnglishbyonetotwopercentage

points(relativetoimmigrantswithstrongEnglish)andofSpanish‐speakingimmigrantbytwoto

fourpercentagepoints(relativetonatives).Theseimpactsareoverwhelmedbyadownwardtrend

inimmigrantpovertyrates,andaresmallerforSpanish‐speakingimmigrantsinmarketswhere

Spanishisprevalentinthecollege‐educatedworkforce.Theseimpactsmayalsohelpaccountfor

                                                            28Between1990and2008,ln(poor/strongEnglishhours)rose1.39,andln(Spanish/Englishhours)amongnon‐collegerose1.16andamongcollegeeducatedworkersrose0.58,fora‐0.061=‐0.033*1.39‐0.045*1.16+0.065*0.57changeintherelativelnwage,usingthecoefficientsfromTable6.

27 

thenewspreadofMexicanimmigrantsto“new”immigrantdestinationsstartinginthe1990s,as

thelackoflabormarketcompetitionfromfellowSpanishspeakersinthosemarkets,comparedto

traditionalMexicandestinations,wouldhavemadethemarelativelyattractiveplacetosettle.29

                                                            29Chapter5includesadditionalanalysisofwhypovertyrateswerelowerin“new”immigrantdestinations.

28 

ReferencesBerman,Eli,KevinLang,andErezSiniver.“Language‐SkillComplementarity:ReturnstoImmigrant

LanguageAcquisition.”LabourEconomics10(3):June2003,pp.265‐290.

Bleakley,andAimeeChin.“LanguageSkillsandEarnings:EvidencefromChildhoodImmigrants.”TheReviewofEconomicsandStatistics86(2):May2004,p.481–496.

Borjas,GeorgeJ.“TheEconomicsofImmigration.”JournalofEconomicLiterature32(4):December1994,p1667‐1717.

‐‐‐‐.“LaborOutflowsandLaborInflowsinPuertoRico.”JournalofHumanCapital2(1):Spring2008,pp.32‐68.

Card,David.“ImmigrantInflows,NativeOutflows,andtheLocalLaborMarketImpactsofHigherImmigration,”JournalofLaborEconomics19(1),January2001,pp.22‐64.

‐‐‐‐,“ImmigrationandInequality,”TheAmericanEconomicReview99(2),May2009,pp.1‐21.

Card,David,andJohnDiNardo,“DoImmigrantInflowsLeadtoNativeOutflows?”TheAmericanEconomicReview90(2),May2000,pp.360‐367.

Card,David,andEthanLewis.“TheDiffusionofMexicanImmigrantsDuringthe1990s:ExplanationsandImpacts.”InGeorgeJ.Borjas,ed.,MexicanImmigrationtotheUnitedStates.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007.

Carliner,Geoffrey.“TheWagesandLanguageSkillsofU.S.Immigrants.”NBERWorkingPaper5763,September1996.

Castillo,Federico,J.KeithGilless,andStevenRaphael.“ComparingtheDomesticLaborMarketImpactsofaSouth‐NorthandSouth‐SouthMigration:TheCasesofCostaRicaandtheUnitedStates.”Mimeo,UCBerkeley,September2009.

Chiswick,BarryR.andPaulW.Miller.“TheEndogeneitybetweenLanguageandEarnings:InternationalAnalyses.”JournalofLaborEconomics13(2):April1995,pp.246‐288.

‐‐‐‐.“OccupationalLanguageRequirementsandtheValueofEnglishintheU.S.LaborMarket.”IZADPNo.2664,March2007.

Cutler,DavidM.,EdwardL.Glaeser,andJacobL.Vigdor.“WhenAreGhettosBad?LessonsfromImmigrantSegregationintheUnitedStates.”JournalofUrbanEconomics63(3):759‐74.

Dustmann,ChristianandArthurvanSoest.“LanguageFluencyandEarnings:EstimationwithMisclassifiedLanguageIndicators.”ReviewofEconomicsandStatistics83:2001,663‐674.

‐‐‐‐.“LanguageandtheEarningsofImmigrants.”IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview55(3):2002,pp.473‐492.

29 

DustmannChristian,andFrancescaFabbri.“LanguageProficiencyandLabourmarketPerformanceofImmigrantsintheUK.”TheEconomicJournal113(489):July2003,pp.695‐717.

Ferrer,Ana,DavidA.GreenandCraigW.Riddell.“TheEffectofLiteracyonImmigrantEarnings.”TheJournalofHumanResources41:2006,380‐410.

Friedberg,RachelandJenniferHunt.“TheImpactofImmigrantsonHostCountryWages,EmploymentandGrowth.”JournalofEconomicPerspectives9(2):Spring1995,p.23‐44.

Goldin,ClaudiaandandLawrenceKatz.TheRaceBetweenEducationandTechnology,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2008

Lang,Kevin.“ALanguageTheoryofDiscrimination.”TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics101(2):May1986,pp.363‐382.

Lewis,Ethan,“HowDoLocalLaborMarketsintheU.S.AdjusttoImmigration?”FederalReserveBankofPhiladelphia,Mimeo,November2004.

Ottaviano,GianmarcoI.P.,andGiovanniPeri,“RethinkingtheEffectofImmigrationonWages,”Mimeo,UCDavis,March2010.AlsoforthcomingJEEA.

Peri,Giovanni,andChadSparber,“TaskSpecialization,ComparativeAdvantages,andtheEffectsofImmigrationonWages,”AmericanEconomicJournal:AppliedEconomics1(3),July2009,pp.135‐69.

Raphael,StevenandEugeneSmolensky.“ImmigrationandPovertyintheUnitedStates.”InstituteforResearchonPovertyDiscussionPaperno1347‐08,UniversityofWisconsin‐Madison,September2008.

‐‐‐‐.“ImmigrationandPovertyintheUnitedStates.”TheAmericanEconomicReview99(2),May2009,pp.41‐44.

Ruggles,Steven,J.TrentAlexander,KatieGenadek,RonaldGoeken,MatthewB.Schroeder,andMatthewSobek.IntegratedPublicUseMicrodataSeries:Version5.0[Machine‐readabledatabase].Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota,2010.

Singer,Audrey.“TheRiseofNewImmigrantGateways.”BrookingsInstitutionCenteronUrbanandMetropolitanPolicy,February2004.

30 

.2.4

.6.8

1

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

Only,VeryWell,orWell

OnlyorVeryWell

A.AgeatArrival

.2.4

.6.8

1

0‐4 5‐9 10‐1415‐1920‐2425‐2930‐40 40+YearsinU.S.

B.YearsinU.S.

DataSource:Combined2007,2008,and2009AmericanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).Samplelimitedtoworkingageforeign‐bornlivingin136largemetropolitanareasandnotingroupquarters.

AllEducationLevels

Figure1a.ShareofImmigrantsWhoSpeakEnglish,byAgeAtArrivalandYearsinU.S.,2007‐9

31 

.2.4

.6.8

1

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

Only,VeryWell,orWell

OnlyorVeryWell

A.HighSchoolorLess

.2.4

.6.8

1

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

B.MorethanHighSchool

DataSource:Combined2007,2008,and2009AmericanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).Samplelimitedtoworkingageforeign‐bornlivingin136largemetropolitanareasandnotingroupquarters.

Figure1b.ShareofImmigrantsWhoSpeakEnglish,byAgeAtArrivalandBroadEducation,2007‐9

32 

‐.15

‐.1‐.05

0

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

SlopeEstimate

95%ConfidenceInterval

A.AgeatArrival

‐.15

‐.1‐.05

0

0‐4 5‐9 10‐1415‐1920‐2425‐2930‐40 40+YearsinU.S.

B.YearsinU.S.

DataSource:2007,2008,and2009AmericanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010)and2000CensusofPopulation.SeenotestoTable5fordetailsofdataconstructionandestimation.

AllEducationLevels

Figure2a.ResponseofImmigrantRelativeWagestoRelativeSupply,byAgeAtArrivalandYearsinU.S.,2000and2008

33 

‐.2‐.15

‐.1‐.05

0

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

SlopeEstimate

95%ConfidenceInterval

A.HighSchoolorLess

‐.2‐.15

‐.1‐.05

0

0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59AgeatArrivalinU.S.

B.MorethanHighSchool

DataSource:2007,2008,and2009AmericanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010)and2000CensusofPopulation.SeenotestoTable5fordetailsofdataconstructionandestimation.

Figure2b.ResponseofImmigrantRelativeWagestoRelativeSupply,byAgeAtArrivalandBroadEducation,2000and2008

34 

BuffaloSt.LouisCleveland

Baltimore

Detroit

Minneapolis

Philadelphia Milwaukee

CharlotteGreensboro‐Winston‐Salem

Seattle

Tampa

Boston Atlanta

SaltLakeCity

Portland,OR

Nassau‐Suffolk

Raleigh‐Durham

WashingtonDCSacramento

FortLauderdale

Middlesex

WestPalmBeach

Orlando

Newark

Denver

Bergen‐Passaic

FortWorth

LasVegasChicago

NewYork

Oakland

Phoenix

SanDiego

SanFrancisco

Austin

Houston

Riverside

Dallas

SanJose

JerseyCity

Anaheim

LosAngeles

Miami

‐5‐4

‐3‐2

‐10

AmongWorkersWithMorethanHS

‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0AmongWorkerswithHSorless

DataSource:2007‐9AmericanCommunitySurveys.Dottedlinesaremedians.PointsaboveslopedlinehaveaboveaveragewagesforSpanish‐speakingimmigrants,relativetonatives,accordingtoestimatesinTable6,column4.

Figure3.ln(Spanish/English)Hours,2008:morethanhighschoolvs.highschoolorless

35 

NoHS

1‐3yrsHS

HSDegree

1‐3yrsColl

4+yrscoll

.05

.1.15

.2.25

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Datasource:1970‐2000U.S.Censuses,andcombined2007‐9PuertoRicanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).Samplelimitedtopopulationaged16‐65,notlivingingroupquartersandoldenoughtobeoutofinschoolwithnormalprogression.

Figure4.Non‐PuertoRicanbornshareofPuertoRicanpopulation,byeducationandyear

36 

SmHS,0

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

NoHS,5

SmHS,5

HS,5

SmC,5

CGRD,5NoHS,10

SmHS,10

HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10NoHS,15

SmHS,15

HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15

NoHS,20

SmHS,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

NoHS,25

SmHS,25

HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

NoHS,30

SmHS,30

HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30

NoHS,35

SmHS,35

HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35

NoHS,40

SmHS,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

NoHS,0

SmHS,0

HS,0SmC,0

CGRD,0

NoHS,5

SmHS,5

HS,5SmC,5

CGRD,5

NoHS,10

SmHS,10HS,10SmC,10

CGRD,10

NoHS,15

SmHS,15

HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15

NoHS,20

SmHS,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

NoHS,25

SmHS,25

HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

NoHS,30

SmHS,30

HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30

NoHS,35

SmHS,35

HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35

NoHS,40

SmHS,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

NoHS,0

SmHS,0

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

NoHS,5

SmHS,5

HS,5SmC,5

CGRD,5

NoHS,10

SmHS,10

HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10

NoHS,15

SmHS,15

HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15NoHS,20

SmHS,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

NoHS,25SmHS,25

HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

NoHS,30

SmHS,30

HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30NoHS,35

SmHS,35

HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35NoHS,40

SmHS,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

NoHS,0

SmHS,0

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

NoHS,5

SmHS,5

HS,5

SmC,5

CGRD,5

NoHS,10

SmHS,10

HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10

NoHS,15SmHS,15

HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15

NoHS,20

SmHS,20

HS,20

SmC,20CGRD,20

NoHS,25

SmHS,25HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

NoHS,30

SmHS,30HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30

NoHS,35SmHS,35

HS,35

SmC,35CGRD,35

NoHS,40

SmHS,40 HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

NoHS,0

SmHS,0

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

NoHS,5

SmHS,5

HS,5

SmC,5

CGRD,5NoHS,10

SmHS,10

HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10NoHS,15

SmHS,15

HS,15SmC,15

CGRD,15

NoHS,20 SmHS,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

NoHS,25

SmHS,25

HS,25

SmC,25CGRD,25

NoHS,30

SmHS,30

HS,30 SmC,30

CGRD,30NoHS,35

SmHS,35

HS,35SmC,35

CGRD,35

NoHS,40

SmHS,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

SlopeCoef(se)=‐.002(.126)

NoHS‐<9yrsedSmHS‐9‐11yrsedHS‐12yrsedSmC‐13‐15yrsedCGRD‐>=16yrsed

‐.4‐.2

0.2

.4Residualln(Imm/NativeWeeklyWage)

‐.4 ‐.2 0 .2 .4 .6Residualln(PREthnics/PRNatives)

A.PuertoRico

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

HSDO,5HS,5

SmC,5

CGRD,5

HSDO,10HS,10

SmC,10CGRD,10

HSDO,15HS,15

SmC,15CGRD,15

HSDO,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

HSDO,25HS,25SmC,25

CGRD,25

HSDO,30

HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30

HSDO,35 HS,35SmC,35

CGRD,35HSDO,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40

HSDO,0HS,0

SmC,0CGRD,0

HSDO,5

HS,5 SmC,5

CGRD,5

HSDO,10

HS,10SmC,10 CGRD,10

HSDO,15HS,15

SmC,15CGRD,15HSDO,20 HS,20SmC,20 CGRD,20

HSDO,25HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25HSDO,30

HS,30SmC,30CGRD,30

HSDO,35HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35

HSDO,40

HS,40SmC,40CGRD,40

HSDO,0HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0

HSDO,5

HS,5SmC,5

CGRD,5

HSDO,10

HS,10SmC,10

CGRD,10HSDO,15

HS,15SmC,15CGRD,15

HSDO,20

HS,20

SmC,20CGRD,20HSDO,25HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

HSDO,30

HS,30SmC,30

CGRD,30HSDO,35

HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35HSDO,40

HS,40

SmC,40

CGRD,40HS,0SmC,0

CGRD,0

HSDO,5

HS,5SmC,5

CGRD,5

HSDO,10HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10

HSDO,15HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15

HSDO,20

HS,20

SmC,20

CGRD,20

HSDO,25HS,25SmC,25

CGRD,25HSDO,30

HS,30SmC,30

CGRD,30

HSDO,35HS,35

SmC,35CGRD,35

HSDO,40

HS,40

SmC,40CGRD,40

HS,0

SmC,0

CGRD,0HSDO,5

HS,5SmC,5

CGRD,5HSDO,10

HS,10

SmC,10

CGRD,10

HSDO,15

HS,15

SmC,15

CGRD,15

HSDO,20

HS,20SmC,20

CGRD,20

HSDO,25HS,25

SmC,25

CGRD,25

HSDO,30

HS,30

SmC,30

CGRD,30HS,35

SmC,35

CGRD,35

HS,40

SmC,40 CGRD,40

SlopeCoef(se)=‐.033(.017)

HSDO‐<12yrsedHS‐12yrsedSmC‐13‐15yrsedCGRD‐>=16yrsed‐.2

‐.10

.1.2

‐.3 ‐.2 ‐.1 0 .1 .2 .3Residualln(Imm/NativeWksWorked)

B.UnitedStates

Note:Scalesofthetwographsare(roughly)proportional.Labelsidentifyeducationxfiveyearexperiencescells.Thex‐variableinPanelAistheresidualln(ethnicPuertoRicanUS‐born/PuertoRican‐bornpopulation).(Aoneunitincreaseinthisvariableisassociatedwithaoneunitincreaseintherelativeweeksworkedofnon‐Puerto‐Ricanbornworkers‐‐seeTable7).Allvariablesareresidualsfromaregressiononanexhaustivesetofeducationxyear,experiencexyear,andeducationxexperiencedummies.RawdatasourcesareU.S.andPuertoRicanPopulationCensuses,andAmericanandPuertoRicanCommunitySurveys(Rugglesetal.,2010).Seetextfordetails.

Figure5.Responseofimmigrantrelativeweeklywagetoimmigrantrelativesupply:U.S.andPuertoRico

37 

Subgroup:

Education Level: All Educ. 

Levels

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

All Educ. 

Levels

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Foreign‐Born, Share Speaks English…

    Only/Very Well 0.464 0.278 0.679 0.261 0.177 0.516

    Well 0.221 0.227 0.214 0.234 0.227 0.257

    Not Well 0.211 0.318 0.088 0.317 0.365 0.173

    Not At All 0.104 0.178 0.019 0.188 0.232 0.054

Native‐Born, Share Speaks English…

    Only/Very Well 0.983 0.971 0.990 0.820 0.764 0.879

    Well 0.011 0.017 0.007 0.113 0.139 0.086

    Not Well 0.005 0.009 0.003 0.054 0.074 0.033

    Not At All 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.013 0.023 0.002

B. Speaks Spanish At Home

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al. 2010).  Sample limited to working‐age 

population (age 16‐65 with positive years of potential work experience) residing in 136 large metropolitan areas and not in group 

quarters.  Panel B is further restricted to those who report speaking Spanish at home.  Sample weights used to construct shares.

Table 1.  Distribution Across English Speaking Categories, by Nativity, Education and Home Language

A. All Working Age

38 

Outcome:

Education Level: All Educ. 

Levels

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

All Educ. 

Levels

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

All Native‐Born 2.25 1.94 2.39 0.10 0.16 0.06

All Foreign‐Born 2.05 1.76 2.35 0.15 0.20 0.08Foreign‐Born Who Speak English:

     Only/Very Well 2.31 1.91 2.46 0.09 0.14 0.06

     Well 1.99 1.83 2.19 0.13 0.16 0.10

     Not Well 1.70 1.67 1.87 0.21 0.22 0.17

     Not at All 1.55 1.54 1.71 0.29 0.30 0.23

All FB Spanish Speakers 1.80 1.70 2.07 0.19 0.22 0.11   Speaks no English 1.54 1.53 1.66 0.30 0.30 0.24

B. Share of Group in PovertyA. Mean ln(hourly Wage), 1999$

Table 2.  Mean ln Wages and Poverty Rates By Nativity, Education, and Language Skills, 2008

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al. 2010).  In Panel B, sample is limited to working‐

age population (age 16 ‐ 65 and old enough to be out of school, given normal progression) residing in 136 large metropolitan areas and not in 

group quarters.  In Panel A, sample is  limited to respondents from the Panel B sample that are currently employed and that had positive 

hours  worked, positive wage and salary earnings, and zero self‐employment and farm earnings in the past year.  Wages are adjusted to 1999 

dollars  using the consumer price index, and wages exceeding 200 dollars and less than 2 dollars in 1999 dollars  are replaced with these 

thresholds.

Foreign‐Born

Native Born

Foreign‐Born who Speak Spanish At Home

39 

Dependent Variable:

Subgroup:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Immigrant ‐0.186 ‐0.041 ‐0.021 0.000 ‐0.003 ‐0.004

(0.009) (0.007) (0.007) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013)

Speaks English:

0.209 0.168 0.149 0.208 0.174

(0.008) (0.009) (0.008) (0.021) (0.019)

       Among entire working‐age pop ‐0.212

(0.081)

0.069

(0.081)

‐0.306

(0.165)

Sample Size 724,737 724,737 724,737 173,590 173,590 173,590

R2

0.019 0.028 0.189 0.016 0.018 0.018

Other Controls?* No No Yes No No No

ln(Hourly Wage),  Workers with HS Education or Less

Table 3: The Role of Language Skills in Immigrant‐Native Wage Gaps.

Spanish Speakers Only

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al., 2010).  Sample limited to working‐age 

respondents (age 16 ‐ 65 with positive years of potential work experience) that have 12 or fewer years of education, that reside one of 

136 large metropolitan areas and not in group quarters, that are currently employed, and that had positive hours worked, positive wage 

and salary earnings, and zero self‐employment and farm earnings in the past year.  Wages exceeding 200 dollars or less than 2 dollars  in 

1999 dollars  are replaced with these thresholds.  Standard errors, in parentheses, computed to be robust to arbitrary error correlation 

within metropolitan area.  *Other controls  are a quartic in potential work experience; years of education; years of  interacted with  

education below 9 years, born after 1950, and both; and dummies for education less than 9 years, born after 1950, female, black, 

Hispanic, female*black, and female*hispanic.

       Among those with HS or less

      Among those with more than HS

   Only or Very Well

   Only or Very Well x Share of MSA who speak Spanish at home

40 

Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard

Deviation Deviation Deviation

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

ln(imm hours/nat hours) ‐1.934 1.019 ‐1.581 1.113 ‐2.288 0.769

Immigrant‐Native Wage Gap

   All Immigrants ‐0.125 0.079 ‐0.156 0.072 ‐0.093 0.073

   High English Immigrants ‐0.076 0.066 ‐0.088 0.064 ‐0.063 0.065

   Low English immigrants ‐0.360 0.201 ‐0.251 0.105 ‐0.469 0.215

Observations

Table 4.  Regression Data Descriptive Statistics

272272

Data  source:  Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys  (Ruggles  et al ., 2010) and 2000 Census  of 

Population.  Sample  for constructing hours  worked includes  al l  those  aged 16‐65 who are  old enough to be  out of school  

(given normal  progress ion) and res iding in one  of the  136 metropol i tan areas  in the  sample  and not in group quarters .  To be  

in the  wage  sample  requires  being in the  hours  worked sample  plus  being employed, with pos i tive  weeks  and hours  worked 

las t year, nonzero wage  and sa lary earnings , and zero bus iness  and farm earnings ; for natives  i t a lso requires  speaking 

Engl i sh "only" or "very wel l ."  Hourly wages  above  $200 and below $2 in 1999 dol lars  are  reset to these  thresholds .  Data  have  

been aggregated to 136 metropol i tan areas  x two education groups  x two years  (2000 and "2008," combining the  three  ACSs).  

Table  shows  unweighted means  and standard deviations .

544

All Education Levels More than High SchoolHigh School or Less

41 

Education Levels: All

High School 

or Less

More than 

HS

(1) (2) (3)

A. All Immigrants ‐0.040 ‐0.034 ‐0.054

(0.003) (0.004) (0.006)

B. By Broad English Language Skills:

   Speaks English Only, ‐0.022 ‐0.011 ‐0.045

      Very Well, or Well (0.004) (0.004) (0.006)

   Speaks English Not Well ‐0.057 ‐0.047 ‐0.078

      or Not At All (0.006) (0.006) (0.016)

P‐value, Equal Coefficients 0.000 0.000 0.030

C. By Detailed English Language Skills (112 MSAs):

   Speaks English Only or ‐0.020 ‐0.012 ‐0.036

      Very Well (0.004) (0.004) (0.007)

   Speaks English Well ‐0.028 ‐0.018 ‐0.047

(0.005) (0.006) (0.011)

   Speaks English Not Well ‐0.049 ‐0.037 ‐0.071

(0.006) (0.007) (0.013)

   Speaks English Not at All ‐0.083 ‐0.050 ‐0.144

(0.014) (0.008) (0.035)

P‐value, Equal Coefficients 0.000 0.000 0.005

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et 

al., 2010) and 2000 Census of Population.  Table shows  coefficient estimates from 

regressions of the wage gap between specified immigrants and "similar" natives (see 

below) on the natural log of the ratio of aggregate hours  worked of immigrants  and 

natives, using variation across metropolitan areas, year (2000 or "2008") and the two 

broad education of columns  (2) and (3).  All regressions control for year by education 

effects.  Standard errors, in parentheses, computed to be robust to arbitrary error 

correlation within metropolitan area.  Sample for constructing mean wages limited to 

working‐age respondents (age 16 ‐ 65 and old enough to be out of school given normal 

progression) , that reside one of 136 large metropolitan areas (112 in Panel C) and not in 

group quarters, that are currently employed, and that had positive hours and weeks 

worked, positive wage and salary earnings, and zero business  and farm earnings in the 

past year; for natives, sample is  further limited to those who report speaking English 

"only" or "very well."  Hourly wages above $200 and below $2 in 1999 dollars  were reset 

to these thresholds.  *The mean ln hourly wage of "similar" natives is computed by 

weighting natives to have the same distribution across potential experience (in five year 

bands) x education (four groups: high school dropouts, high school, some college, and at 

least four years college) cells as the specified group of immigrants  in the metropolitan 

area and year.  

Table 5: Response of the Difference in the Mean ln(Hourly Wage) 

of Immigrants and Similar* Natives to Changes in Immigrant 

Relative Aggregate Hours Worked

42 

Dependent Variable:

Subgroup of Immigrants: Other

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

Ln (Immigrant Hours/ ‐0.034

        Native‐Born  Hours) (0.004)

‐0.034 ‐0.036 ‐0.033 ‐0.060

         Hours) (0.004) (0.007) (0.028) (0.018)

ln(Spanish‐speaking Hours/Strong English Speaking Hours): 

‐0.045 0.052

       Education or Less (0.035) (0.024)

0.065 ‐0.015

      High School Education (0.017) (0.017)

Metro x Year Observations 272 272 272 272 272

R2

0.300 0.298 0.157 0.224 0.110

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al., 2010) and 2000 Census of 

Population.  Wage sample limited to working‐age respondents (age 16 ‐ 65 with and old enough to be out of school, given 

normal progression) that have 12 or fewer years of education (or a GED), that reside one of 136 large metropolitan areas and 

not in group quarters, that are currently employed, and that had positive hours worked, positive wage and salary earnings, 

and zero self‐employment earnings in the past year; for natives it also requires speaking English "only" or "very well."  The 

dependent variable is  the difference in the mean ln hourly wage between the specified group of immigrants and similar 

natives,  where the mean ln hourly wage of "similar" natives is  computed by weighting natives to have the same distribution 

across potential experience (in five year bands) x education (high school dropouts  or completers) cells as the specified group 

of immigrants in the metropolitan area and year.  Strong English‐speaking hours worked is the sum of hours worked by those 

who report speaking English "Only" "Very Well," or "Well," while poor English‐speaking hours are the sum of hours worked 

reported by those who speak English "Not Well" or "Not at All" among working‐age respondents. "Spanish‐speakers" are 

respondents who report speaking Spanish at home.  All regressions are unweighted and control for year effects.  Standard 

errors, in parentheses, computed to be robust to arbitrary error correlation within metropolitan area.  

All Spanish‐Speaking

ln(Immigrant Wage/Native Wage), High School or Less

Table 6: Immigrants' Relative Wages and Language Supplies, 2000 and 2008

Ln(Poor/Strong English‐Speaking

Among workers with High School

Among workers with More than

43 

Y = ln(for/ Subsample:

nat weeks) Poor English

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

ln(Foreign‐born weeks/ 0.150 ‐0.033 ‐0.021 ‐0.002 ‐0.031

       Native‐born weeks) (0.061) (0.017) (0.019) (0.020) (0.049)

ln(Cont'l U.S. born ethnic Puerto ‐0.002 1.003

       Ricans/Puerto‐Rican born) (0.126) (0.126)

Observations 224 224 224 180 144 144 144

R‐squared 0.489 0.457 0.919 0.935 0.942 0.913 0.976

Table 7: Continental U.S. and Puerto Rico: Aggregate estimates, 1970‐2000

Y=ln(foreign/native 

Data  Source: 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Puerto Rican Censuses  of Population and combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 Puerto Rican Community Surveys  

(Panel  A) and 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. Censuses  of Population and combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys  (Panel  B), 

al l  from Ruggles  et al . (2010).   Sample  for independent variable  includes  workers  age  16‐65 who are  old enough to be  out of school  given 

normal  progress ion through school  and not l i ving in group quarters .  The  sample  used to compute  the  dependent variable, weekly wages , i s  

this  sample  with the  additional  requirement of being currently employed (U.S.) or reporting an occupation (Puerto Rico), not enrol led in school , 

and without bus iness  or farm income.  In U.S. data  (columns  4‐7), weekly wages  exceeding $10,000 or below $10 in 1999 dol lars  were  reset at 

these  thresholds .  In columns  5‐7, native‐born workers  who did no report speaking Engl i sh "only" or "very wel l" were  excluded from the  wage  

sample.  Sample  weights  used to aggregate  variables  to the  5‐year experience  x education cel l s  used in the  analys i s  (see  text).  Standard errors  

are  ca lculated to be  robust to arbi trary error correlation within education x experience  cel l s .

weekly wage)

A. Puerto Rico B. Continental United States

Excluding 1970

Strong English

44 

Appendix

Toaddressthepossibilitythatahighpresenceofimmigrantsinamarketreflectshighwagesin

thosemarkets‐‐whichwouldtendtobiasthecoefficientsinTables5and6towardszero,Iusean

instrumentalvariableforln(HF/HN)fromCard(2009),whichmeasurestheimmigrantinflowrates

predictedbythearea’slaggedoriginmixofimmigrants.Inparticular,itis:

1,

2,

tc

o

Fojttoc

jct P

Pfz ,

wherefoc,t‐2representsatwodecadelaginthefractionofU.S.immigrantsfromregionolivingin

metropolitanareac,whichapportions FojtP ,thenumberofimmigrants(nationally)arrivingfrom

oinskillgroupjinthepastdecade.(TheregionsarelistedinTableA2,alongwith FojtP figures.)

Thenumeratoristhusthepredictednumberofimmigrantarrivalsincelljc.Thisisconvertedtoa

predictedarrivalratebydividingbythearea’sbeginningofdecadepopulation,Pc,t‐1.The

assumptionbehindthisinstrumentisimmigrantspersistinlocatingincertainareasbecausethey

valuebeingnearsimilarimmigrants,andnotbecausetheseareashavepersistentlystrongerwage

growthforthattypeofimmigrant.

Thisinstrumentisastrongpredictorofimmigrants’relativehours.F‐statisticsontheinstrument

inthefirststageareinthe50‐100range.Inaddition,instrumentalvariablesestimatesusingthis

instrumentaresimilartotheOLSestimatespresentedinTable5.ThisisshowninAppendixTable

A3,whichisidenticalinstructuretoTable5butshowsIVestimates.Itshowsthesamepatternof

coefficients,withgreater(magnitude)wageresponsesforimmigrantswithworseEnglishlanguage

skills.ThedifferencesincoefficientsacrossEnglish‐speakingcategoriesaresimilarinmagnitudeto

theOLSestimates,andare,asinOLS,statisticallysignificant.

45 

Seattle

Boston

St.Louis

SanFranciscoMinneapolis

NewYork

Atlanta

Portland,OR

Baltimore

Detroit

SanJose

SacramentoPhiladelphia

Newark

OaklandCharlotte

WestPalmBeach

Cleveland

Greensboro‐Winston‐Salem

Raleigh‐Durham

WashingtonDCChicago

Anaheim

FortLauderdale

Middlesex

Denver

Buffalo

Phoenix

Dallas

LosAngeles

FortWorth

Milwaukee

Miami

Bergen‐Passaic

Houston

SaltLakeCity

JerseyCity

SanDiegoLasVegasAustin

Nassau‐Suffolk

TampaRiverside

Orlando

‐1‐.5

0.5

11.5

AmongWorkersWithMorethanHS

‐1 ‐.5 0 .5 1AmongWorkerswithHSorless

DataSource:2007‐9AmericanCommunitySurveys.Pointsareresidualsofaregressionofln(Spanish/Englishhours)onln(poor/strongEnglishhours),separatelybyeducation(highschoolorlessonthex‐axis,morethanHSonthey‐axis).PointsaboveslopedlinehaveaboveaveragewagesforSpanish‐speakingimmigrants,relativetonatives,(conditionalonln(poor/strongEnglishhours)accordingtoestimatesinTable6,column4.

AppendixFigureA1.Residualln(Spanish/EnglishHours),2008:morethanhighschoolvs.highschoolorless

46 

Area

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School Area

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

Anaheim, CA 0.543 0.118 McAllen, TX 0.928 0.789

Aurora, IL 0.502 0.097 Miami, FL 0.684 0.612

Bakersfield, CA 0.507 0.198 Oxnard‐Ventura, CA 0.528 0.147

Brownsville, TX 0.816 0.670 Riverside, CA 0.505 0.213

El Paso, TX 0.846 0.678 Salinas, CA 0.673 0.193

Jersey City, NJ 0.526 0.270 San Antonio, TX 0.540 0.292

Laredo, TX 0.890 0.818 Santa Barbara, CA 0.589 0.151

Los Angeles, CA 0.633 0.216 Santa Cruz, CA 0.515 0.093

Table A1.  Share Speaks Spanish at Home, by Broad Education, Selected Metropolitan Areas

Data  source: s tacked 2007, 2008 and 2009 American Community Surveys  (ACSs) (Ruggles  et al ., 2010).  Sample  l imited 

to working‐age  population (age  16‐65 and old enough to be  out of school , given a  normal  progress ion through 

school ), and not l i ving in group quarters .  Computed us ing ACS sample  weights .

47 

Origin Group:

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

High School 

or Less

More than 

High School

(1) (2) (3) (4)

    Mexican 1,944,656     292,542         2,618,328     296,963        

    Central American 517,066         105,261         493,669         92,671          

    South American 290,534         302,840         333,430         275,063        

    Caribbean (ex Cuban) 202,625         131,153         331,827         148,237        

    SE Asian (ex Filipino) 139,257         104,244         288,013         173,567        

    Chinese 135,836         220,608         158,375         302,729        

    Russian or E European 133,065         286,665         283,883         385,346        

    Sub‐Saharan African 129,245         178,315         129,346         173,449        

    South Asian 123,072         497,999         148,698         430,311        

    Cuban 89,306           56,648           109,769         56,659          

    Middle Eastern (ex Israeli) 88,988           165,310         94,684           137,885        

    Filipino 56,810           229,456         91,406           219,320        

    Commonwealth 51,432           189,733         74,478           264,485        

    Korean or Japanese 50,217           220,028         84,669           248,958        

    Southern European 27,374           46,875           34,168           48,243          

    Northern European* 9,521             63,872           55,668           169,033        

2000‐2008 1990‐2000

Table A2.  National Immigrant Arrivals, by Education, Origin, and Decade

* Includes  Is rael i s .  Data  Source: Combined 2007, 2008, 2009 American Community Surveys  

(columns  (1) and (2), from Ruggles  et al ., 2010) and 2000 Census  of Population (columns  (3) and 

(4)).  Sample  l imited to working age  population (age  16‐65 and old enough to be  out of school , 

given normal  progress ion through school ) and not l i ving in group quarters .

48 

Education Levels: All

High School 

or Less

More than 

HS

(1) (2) (3)

A. All Immigrants ‐0.035 ‐0.030 ‐0.052

(0.005) (0.006) (0.007)

B. By Broad English Language Skills:

   Speaks English Only, ‐0.018 ‐0.010 ‐0.044

      Very Well, or Well (0.005) (0.005) (0.006)

   Speaks English Not Well ‐0.043 ‐0.033 ‐0.074

      or Not At All (0.009) (0.009) (0.016)

P‐value, Equal Coefficients 0.000 0.001 0.060

C. By Detailed English Language Skills (112 MSAs):

   Speaks English Only or ‐0.022 ‐0.018 ‐0.036

      Very Well (0.005) (0.005) (0.007)

   Speaks English Well ‐0.015 ‐0.005 ‐0.046

(0.007) (0.008) (0.011)

   Speaks English Not Well ‐0.030 ‐0.017 ‐0.069

(0.010) (0.011) (0.015)

   Speaks English Not at All ‐0.057 ‐0.030 ‐0.137

(0.014) (0.013) (0.029)

P‐value, Equal Coefficients 0.000 0.009 0.001

Table A3: Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Response of the 

Difference in the Mean ln(Hourly Wage) of Immigrants and Similar* 

Natives to Changes in Immigrant Relative Aggregate Hours Worked

Data Source: Combined 2007, 2008, and 2009 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et 

al., 2010) and 2000 Census of Population.  Table shows  coefficient estimates from 

regressions of the wage gap between specified immigrants and "similar" natives (see 

below) on the natural log of the ratio of aggregate hours worked of immigrants  and 

natives, using variation across metropolitan areas, year (2000 or "2008") and the two 

broad education of columns  (2) and (3).  All regressions control for year by education 

effects and are estimated by instrumental variables using the lagged origin mix 

instrument described in the appendix.  Standard errors, in parentheses, computed to be 

robust to arbitrary error correlation within metropolitan area.  Sample for constructing 

mean wages limited to working‐age respondents (age 16 ‐ 65 and old enough to be out of 

school given normal progression), that reside one of 136 large metropolitan areas (112 

in Panel C) and not living in group quarters, that are currently employed, and that had 

positive hours  and weeks worked, positive wage and salary earnings, and zero business 

and farm earnings in the past year; for natives, sample is further limited to those who 

report speaking English "only" or "very well."   Hourly wages above $200 and below $2 in 

1999 dollars  were reset to these thresholds.  *The mean ln hourly wage of "similar" 

natives is  computed by weighting natives to have the same distribution across potential 

experience (in five year bands) x education (four groups: high school dropouts, high 

school, some college, and at least four years college) cells as the specified group of 

immigrants in the metropolitan area and year.