Labor Market Segmentation and the Earnings of German Guestworkers

In this paper we study the occupational progress and earnings attainment of immigrants in Germany and compare them to native Germans. Our analysis is guided by the human capital, segmented labor market, and discrimination theories. To assess the separate effects of occupational segmentation and discrimination in the allocation of occupations and wages, we conceptualize the process of earnings attainment as occurring in three stages: initial occupational achievement, final occupational achievement after the accumulation of experience, and, contingent on the former, final earnings attainment. Our analysis of data from the German Socioeconomic Panel suggests a high degree of initial occupational segmentation, with mmigrants being less able to translate their human capital into a good first job than natives. We also find that immigrants experienced significant discrimination in the process of occupational attainment, yielding little job mobility over time, and a widening of the status gap between Germans and guestworkers. Holding occupational status constant, however, we find less evidence of direct discrimination in the process of earnings attainment. Although immigrants achieved lower rates of return to technical or vocational training than natives, their wage returns to experience, hours worked, years since migration, and academic high school were greater, yielding significant earnings mobility over time.     

Measuring immigrant wage growth using matched CPS files

Cross-sectional estimates of immigrant wage growth have painted an optimistic picture of the ability of immigrants to adapt to the U.S. labor market: Studies using cross-sectional data have generally found the wage growth of immigrants to exceed that of the native born. This optimistic picture of immigrant economic assimilation was challenged by the important finding that compared to earlier immigrant cohorts, recent immigrants started at much lower wages. As such, the high wage growth of immigrants relative to the native born measured in cross-sectional data may simply be the spurious result of declining immigrant earnings ability. In this paper, we match Current Population Survey samples so that the wages of individual immigrant and native-born men can be followed for one year. We find that the wage growth of immigrants does exceed that of the native born. The general finding of faster immigrant wage growth also holds when imposing the foreign-born geographic distribution upon natives, but not when imposing the native-born geographic distribution on the foreign born—a result consistent with some theories of immigrant assimilation. In each comparison, however, the actual wage growth of immigrants relative to natives is similar to the predictions of cross-sectional regressions. This similarity suggests that either there is no cohort quality bias in the cross-sectional estimates of immigrant wage growth, or that there has been a coincidental increase in immigrant wage growth as the entry wages of immigrants have fallen.     

The impact of U.S. immigration upon internal migration

The potential adverse effect of immigrants on job opportunities for natives continues to influence debate about immigration policy in the United States. Many studies have examined wage and employment outcomes; by contrast, we examine internal migration. We ask whether or not natives are more likely to depart from or less likely to move to metropolitan areas with high concentrations of immigrants. After controlling for other influences on migration, we find that metropolitan areas with higher concentrations of immigrants have only slightly lower rates of inmigration of natives. Such metropolitan areas also exhibit slightly lower rates of out-migration, contrary to expectation. These results suggest that the effect of immigrants on labor market redistribution of natives is modest.Research reported here was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. We would like to thank Kofi Benefo for helpful comments.     

Does Human Capital Raise Earnings for Immigrants in the Low-Skill Labor Market?

We use monthly Survey of Income and Program Participation data from 1996–1999 and 2001–2003 to estimate the determinants of differentiation in intercepts and slopes for age/earnings profiles of low-skill immigrant and native male workers. Our findings provide further depth of understanding to the“mixed” picture of earnings determination in the low-skill labor market that has been reported by others. On the positive side, many immigrants are employed in similar occupations and industries as natives. Both groups show substantial wage gains over time and generally receive similar returns to years of schooling completed. Immigrants also receive substantial returns to acculturation, measured as age at arrival and English language skill. These results cast doubt on the strong version of segmented labor market theory, in which low-skill immigrants are permanently consigned to dead-end jobs with no wage appreciation. On the negative side, immigrants earn approximately 24% less than natives and are less likely to occupy supervisory and managerial jobs. Latino immigrants receive lower returns to education than do white immigrants. Furthermore, age at arrival and language ability do not explain the lower returns to education experienced by Latino immigrants. These results suggest that Latino immigrants in particular may suffer from barriers to mobility and/or wage discrimination. Whether these negative labor market experiences occur primarily for illegal immigrants remains unknown.     

Immigrant quality and assimilation: a review of the U.S. literature

Empirical research on US immigrants is reviewed: their productivity and assimilation; their contribution and use of public services; and their impact on native Americans. I discuss the characteristics of cohorts of immigrants that enter the United States at different times, and then quantify the assimilation of immigrants, typically in terms of economic productivity of immigrants compared with natives. Few have found quantifiable negative effects of immigrants on native wages or unemployment in local labor markets, but a more general equilibrium approach than has been empirically implemented may be needed to draw any conclusions regarding the distributional consequences of immigration. Received: 22 September 1995 / Accepted: 2 March 1997     

工资上涨会降低我国的比较优势吗？

低廉的劳动力成本一直是我国参与国际分工的比较优势,但近几年随着我国劳动力工资水平的提高,很多发达国家逐渐将产品的生产外包业务转至它国。对此,本文搜集了我国28个产业的数据,分析工资对产品价格变动的影响程度。结果表明工资与制造业各行业的比较优势具有正相关关系,但工资上升并没有对其比较优势产生根本性转变,主要原因在于劳动生产率的上升快于工资水平的上升,这在一定程度上抵消了工资上涨对比较优势的负面效应。     

Immigration and county employment growth

Prior literature has found that immigrants have no effect on the wages and employment of natives. However, this literature has not accounted for the possibility that immigrants contribute to employment growth in the areas where they locate. Research on internal migration has found that internal migrants contribute to local area employment growth. In this paper I compare the effects of natives and immigrants on county employment. Results show that the overall immigrant population contributes more to increases in employment than the overall native population. Recent immigrants and recent internal in-movers have similar effects on employment growth. The net contribution of immigrants to employment growth is confined to nonmanufacturing employment.     

Legalization and human capital accumulation

This paper presents new evidence regarding the effects of legalization on the training of immigrants who were granted legal status through the US Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Our findings point to a large increase in the immigrants’ incidence of training relative to comparable groups of natives following legalization. While training gains are higher for males, wage gains are higher for females. We also show that an important part of these changes in labor market outcomes occurs through occupation changes by newly legalized immigrants.     

Will They Stay? Foreign-Born Out-Migration from New U.S. Destinations

Immigrants living in new destinations in 1995 were 2.5 times more likely to have migrated to another labor market by 2000 as immigrants living in traditional places. The researchers look at two competing explanations for immigrants’ differential internal migration patterns, namely that immigrants prefer areas with relatively large nativity concentrations which provide them with social support versus immigrants are target earners who prefer robust labor markets with strong employment growth and high wages. Utilizing confidential Census data for 1990 and 2000, the authors develop new destination classifications for 741 labor markets that take into account the differential growth and composition characteristics of 24 Asian, Latin American and Caribbean immigrant groups living in those markets. The empirical analysis of labor market out-migration indicates that immigrants do not see internal migration as an either/or choice between economics and social support but prefer residence places that allow them to maximize both conditions.     

Labor immigration and long-run welfare in a growth model with heterogenous agents and endogenous labor supply

This paper examines the consequences of labor immigration in an OLG economy in which agents have an elastic labor supply and differ with respect to degrees of altruism and rates of time preference. It focuses on three substantive questions. First, how do immigrants influence the bequest motive of altruistic natives? Second, what impact do immigrants have on the labor supply of natives? Finally, how does immigration affect the long-run welfare of both altruistic and non altruistic natives? Received: 25 November 1999/Accepted: 07 April 2000     

Quality of Post-1965 Asian Immigrants

The reliance on an overall average approach to the labor market quality of immigrants could generate misleading information and biased policy recommendations. Focusing on Asian immigrants, this article demonstrates that much insight into immigrant quality can be gained via a diversity approach. Using the 5% PUMS data of the 1990 U.S. census, this paper shows that a common perception that the quality of post-1965 immigrants is lower than natives and earlier immigrants is invalid for post-1965 Asian immigrants. Unlike their Latin American counterparts, post-1965 Asian immigrants are generally more educated and skilled than natives. The educational level of post-1965 Asian immigrants surpasses that of their pre-1965 counterparts, despite their disadvantage in occupational attainment due to their shorter time of adaptation. Diversity also characterizes educational and occupational attainment across major post-1965 Asian immigrant groups and within each Asian immigrant group before and after 1965. Gender does not alter the advantage of post-1965 Asian immigrants over natives and their pre-1965 parallels in education, but it does complicate their occupational status. Policy implications of the findings are considered.     

The dynamics of immigrant welfare and labor market behavior

This paper analyzes transitions into and out of social assistance, unemployment, and employment. We estimate a dynamic multinomial logit model, controlling for endogenous initial condition and unobserved heterogeneity, using a large representative Swedish panel data set. The empirical results suggest that particularly refugee immigrants display a greater degree of “structural” state dependence than natives. The high welfare participation rates among refugee immigrants may be due to the existence of a “welfare trap”, while participation among natives and non-refugee immigrants is largely due to permanent unobserved characteristics. These results suggest that welfare reforms may have differential effects on refugee immigrants and natives.

Labor market transitions of immigrants with emphasis on marginalization and self-employment

In developed countries, immigrants are more likely to be nonemployed and self-employed compared to natives. Based on register data of male immigrants in Denmark, we performed a detailed investigation of the immigrant–native difference in transition patterns across labor market states. We find that a high proportion of immigrants from non-Western countries tend to be marginalized relative to natives, and they tend to use self-employment to escape marginalization.

Do Immigrants Work In Riskier Jobs?

Recent media and government reports suggest that immigrants are more likely to hold jobs with poor working conditions than U.S.-born workers, perhaps because immigrants work in jobs that “ natives don’t want.” Despite this widespread view, earlier studies have not found immigrants to be in riskier jobs than natives. This study combines individual-level data from the 2003-2005 American Community Survey with Bureau of Labor Statistics data on work-related injuries and fatalities to take a fresh look at whether foreign-born workers are employed in more dangerous jobs. The results indicate that immigrants are in fact more likely to work in risky jobs than U.S.-born workers, partly due to differences in average characteristics, such as immigrants’ lower English-language ability and educational attainment.     

Immigration,skills and the labor market: International evidence

Using the 1994–1998 International Adult Literacy Survey, this paper compares cognitive skills and employment of immigrants in Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Immigrants had lower cognitive test scores than natives in each country, with the largest gaps in the US, and small gaps in Canada and New Zealand. Male immigrants in the US were no less likely to work than natives, while in the other countries, male immigrants were less likely to be employed. Female immigrants were less likely in each country to be employed than natives, with an especially large gap for the US.The author thanks Francine D. Blau and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions and Katsuhide Yamashita for excellent research assistance. Responsible editor: Christoph M. Schmidt.     

Immigrants at new destinations: how they fare and why

We explore matched employer–employee data for a new destination of international migrants in Europe—Portugal. We conclude that the difference between the earnings of immigrants and natives with similar personal characteristics is for the most part due to the characteristics of the matches they form, immigrants being penalized on two different counts: absence of match-specific human capital and occupational downgrading. Moreover, we show that non-random sorting across workplaces has a significant detrimental effect on immigrants’ wages. This is the flip side of joining migrant-crowded workplaces.     

Trajectories of Employment Gaps of Refugees and Other Migrants: Evidence from Austria

This paper analyzes the labor market integration of non-European refugees originating from middle- and low-income countries for the period of 2009–2018 in Austria. We assess their probability of being employed relative to Austrian natives and compare it with that of other non-European migrants and European refugees and other immigrants from low- and middle-income non-EU countries. We draw on a register-based panel dataset covering the complete labor market careers of all individuals residing in Austria. We control for macrolevel explanatory variables (e.g., the labor market situation at the time and the place of settlement) and individual characteristics. The analysis shows that initial refugee employment gaps relative to natives are large in the first years, when labor market access is difficult. After a period of 7 years, the unconditional gap between refugees and natives declines to 30 percentage points, similar to that of other migrants, but the gap is still decreasing. After controlling for a set of explanatory variables, the conditional gap amounts to only 10 percentage points at that time. Moreover, our analysis provides insights into differences in employment gaps across population subgroups of immigrant groups and natives by gender, age, education level, and types of employment.

     

Should the US have locked heaven��s door?

This paper examines the economic impact of the second great immigration wave (1945–2000) on the US economy. Our analysis relies on a computable general equilibrium model combining the major interactions between immigrants and natives (labor market impact, fiscal impact, capital deepening, endogenous education, endogenous inequality). Contrary to recent studies, we show that immigration induced important net gains and small redistributive effects among natives. According to our simulations, the postwar US immigration is beneficial for all natives cohorts and all skill groups. Nevertheless, the gains would have been larger if the US had conducted a more selective immigration policy.     

Comparing Life Satisfaction of Immigrants and Natives Across Europe: The Role of Social Contacts

Research on immigrants’ assimilation is widespread both in the U.S. and Europe. While it has been extensively studied how immigrants fare compared to natives on socio-economic indicators, few studies have focussed on immigrants’ perception of their position. In this paper we focus on comparing life satisfaction of immigrants and natives across Europe and on the role of social embeddedness. Using data from the first six rounds (2002–2012) of the European Social Survey, a repeated cross-sectional survey, we find that life satisfaction among immigrants is lower than among natives even though differences diminish over generations. For first generation immigrants part of the life satisfaction gap is explained by the lower level of social embeddedness they have compared to natives. We also find that social embeddedness is a key explanatory factor for life satisfaction for both immigrants and natives. For two out of the three indicators of social embeddedness that we consider we however find different patterns of association with life satisfaction for immigrants compared to natives.