|
November 27, 2006
Immigrant Workforce Up—Labor’s GDP Share Down
While
President Bush touts economic growth and job creation,
wages for most American workers are barely keeping
up. The share of Gross Domestic Product [GDP] going to
labor has eroded over the last five years.
Labor’s
share of GDP, which includes wages,
health insurance, and
pension benefits, declined 2.5 percentage points,
from 59 percent in 2000 to 56.5 percent in 2005,
according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of
Economic Analysis. By contrast, the preceding five-year
period, 1995 to 2000, workers’ share of the economy grew
2.3 percentage points. (After
Years of Growth, What About Workers’ Share? by
Eduardo Porter, New York Times, October 15, 2006)
The usual
suspects, according to the conventional wisdom:
outsourcing; the loss of
high paying manufacturing jobs; the introduction of
labor saving technology.
Over the
past ten years, however, none of these trends have
accelerated as dramatically as immigration.
During the
decade of the 1990s, 47 percent of the nation’s
civilian labor force growth was due to immigration. This represented the largest influx of foreign
workers ever to enter the U.S. in a given
decade—substantially exceeding the number who came here
during the
Great Wave of 1890 to 1910. [Andrew Sum, et al.,
Foreign Immigration and the Labor Force of the U.S.,
[PDF]
Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern
University, July 2004.]
But records are made to
be broken, and nowhere more so than in immigration.
During the succeeding 2000 to 2005 period, foreign-born
individuals accounted for:
 | 37 percent of U.S.
population growth |
 | 51 percent of U.S.
labor force growth |
 | 82 percent of U.S.
employment growth |
Click here
for underlying numbers.
The foreign-born share
of the U.S. labor force grew from 12.6 percent in 2000
to 14.8 percent in 2005.
If the immigrant and U.S.-born labor forces
continue growing at their 2000-05 rates, the
foreign-born share will reach the following levels:
 | 2010: 17.3 percent |
 | 2025: 26.8 percent |
 | 2050: 48.2 percent |
By contrast, at the peak
of the
“Great Wave” in 1910 the
foreign born share of the U.S. labor force was
slightly more than 15 percent.
Unfortunately, but
not unusually, the government does not publish monthly
data on immigrant employment. But the monthly Bureau of
Labor Statistics report does track Hispanic
employment—and because so many Hispanics are
immigrants or the
children of immigrants, their employment history is
a good proxy
for that of immigrants. Similarly, the ratio of
Hispanic to non-Hispanic employment growth is a good
indication of
native worker displacement.
The
following graphic shows month-to-month growth in
Hispanic and non-Hispanic employment since the start of
the Bush administration, as well as the ratio of the two
growth rates— which we call the VDARE.COM Worker
Displacement index (VDAWDI).

The black line is
Hispanic job growth; pink is non-Hispanic, and yellow
the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic. From the start of
the Bush Administration (January 2001) through October—
 | Hispanic employment
rose 3.73 million (+23.1 percent) |
 | Non-Hispanic
employment rose 3.64 million (+3.1 percent) |
 | VDAWDI displacement
index rose 19.4 percent, to 119.4 |
Average wage and salary income of
Hispanic workers in 2005 was
30 percent less than the average of all U.S. workers
that year.
Bottom line: Since 2000 immigrants
have accounted for more than 80 percent of U.S.
employment growth. Immigration’s biggest impact,
according to Harvard economist
George Borjas, is to
redistribute income from native workers to employers
by bidding down wages.
So immigration is a major
factor—unmentionable in the MSM— behind labor’s
declining share of national income.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email
him) is President of
ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis. |