Undercurrent of anger

Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:33 PM

H-1B and JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER

www.ZaZona.com

Andrew Sum, a labor market specialist at Northeastern University, helps
to perpetuate the myth that there were so many jobs in the 1990s that
immigration wasn't a problem. This tenured professor probably hans't
had to deal with the job market but that's no reason for him to plead
ignorance. He should know that the 1990s were very bad for white collar
workers over the age of 40 and even worse if they happened to be
technical job seekers.

Sum and his ivory tower colleague Paul Harrington exhorted that they
can't really explain why immigrants did better than their native-born
counterparts. I find it hard to explain why such clueless "experts" are
ever used in news articles. Why is it so difficult for college
professors to understand that employers want immigrants because they
are cheaper?

This article does have one eye-opener: "Over the past two years the
number of native-born Americans with jobs fell by almost 1 million. In
the same two years, the number of employed immigrants rose by 600,000."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/068/business/Undercurrent_of_anger_as_immigrants_gain_jobs+.shtml

ECONOMIC LIFE

Undercurrent of anger as immigrants gain jobs

By Charles Stein, Globe Columnist, 3/9/2003

During the booming 1990s, the United States was a magnet for immigrants
who flocked here by the millions to find work. In this new decade the
United States is still a powerful draw for immigrants, despite the fact
that the economy has stalled and jobs are disappearing. The result:
Immigrants and native-born workers are being forced to divide a
shrinking pie. Down the road that could lead to some real tension. ''As
long as there are enough jobs to go around, my getting a job doesn't
come at your expense,'' said Andrew Sum, a labor market specialist at
Northeastern University. That was the case throughout the 1990s. The
economy was so strong that jobs outnumbered job seekers. In that
climate, immigrants were a critical ingredient for growth. They
supplied roughly half the new entrants to the labor force nationally.
In Massachusetts immigrants constituted a majority of new workers.
Without them, the economy could not have maintained its blistering
pace.

When the boom turned to bust, the situation began to change. In the
past two years the nation's jobless rate has climbed from 4 percent to
5.8 percent. Last Friday the government announced that the economy shed
308,000 jobs in February, a worse-than-expected performance. Workers in
industries from airlines to technology to retailing have lost their
jobs. Sum and his colleague Paul Harrington had a question: How were
immigrants and natives faring in this new environment?

In a paper, based on data from the US Census, the two answer that
question: Native-born Americans have done worse. Over the past two
years the number of native-born Americans with jobs fell by almost 1
million. In the same two years, the number of employed immigrants rose
by 600,000. Some immigrants, of course, lost jobs in the period, but so
many more new arrivals found work that the total number of employed
immigrants still rose. The influx continues, despite the downturn.
Think about it: If you were coming from a country with an average
income one-tenth that of the United States (Guatemala, for example),
would you be deterred by something as minor as a higher US unemployment
rate? The bottom line of the Sum-Harrington report is this: In a
difficult economic time, immigrants have picked up share in the job
market.

The big losers in this shift were native-born men. The less education
they had, the more likely they were to lose their job. Employment among
native-born male high school dropouts fell 8 percent; high school
graduates lost 3 percent of their jobs; college graduates lost 1
percent.

Sum and Harrington can't really explain why immigrants did better than
their native-born counterparts. It could be that the immigrants were
willing to work for less. It could be that at the low-end of the job
market, employers have decided that immigrants are more desirable
workers. Census numbers supply facts, not motives.

It isn't obvious yet that the competition for jobs has led to
widespread resentment toward immigration, but it is not hard to imagine
such a thing. In some industries, that resentment is already here. In
the computer business, displaced workers routinely blame their
situation on immigrant labor and the flip side of immigration, the
outsourcing of work to countries like India and China. ''The appetite
of American industries for cheap foreign labor is one of the reasons
many Americans cannot find work,'' a jobless technology worker wrote to
the Globe recently in response to a story on a program that brings
foreign high-tech workers to this country.

In the 1990s America thrived on openness -- to money, ideas, trade, and
people. Some of that openness disappeared after Sept. 11, 2001. The
current economic downturn may eliminate more of it. Free trade and
liberal immigration policies aren't easy to sell in good times. In hard
times, when one person's gain is another person's loss, they may be all
but impossible to sell.

I don't think Americans are ready to slam the door shut to immigrants.
But if the economy remains weak, they may be ready to close it partway.

Charles Stein is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at
stein@globe.com.

This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 3/9/2003.
) Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Help to Keep ZaZona.com Online

Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubcribe send an email to

Back to archives