Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Hispanic Employment Rate

VIEWS: 82 PAGES: 44

									How Have Hispanics Fared in the “Jobless Recovery”?
William M. Rodgers III
Heldrich Center for Workforce Development Rutgers University and National Poverty Center and

Richard B. Freeman
Harvard University and NBER

How Have Hispanics Fared in the “Jobless Recovery”?
William M. Rodgers III Heldrich Center for Workforce Development Rutgers University and National Poverty Center And Richard B. Freeman Harvard University and NBER January 2006

This paper was prepared for the Center for American Progress and was presented at the January 6th, 2006 American Economic Association’s Session “Economic and Policy Issues Facing the U.S Hispanic Community.” We thank Sue Stockly and panel participants for the comments and suggestions. We also thank the Center for American Progress for their financial support.

Executive Summary

S
•

ince the end of the recession in November 2001, U.S. workers have experienced slow job growth and stagnant wages. These conditions have hurt the economic security of all Americans. Hispanics, the nation’s fastest growing minority group, have been no exception. Hispanics have had fewer jobs, lower wages, less health insurance coverage, and declining pension coverage in recent years. Instead of catching up to other groups, Hispanics have remained behind. Some Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, have fallen even further behind. The main findings from this paper show that: Since 2001, the share of employed Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans, has declined. The employed share of Hispanic men fell by 1.8 percentage points, about the same as white men (1.9) and less than blacks (3.8). Mexican-American men fared worse than Hispanics in general, with a 2.4 point decline. Hispanic women saw their employed share drop by 1.4 percentage points, more than white women (0.9) and less than black women (2.7). The employed share of Mexican-American women decreased by 2.4 percentage points, larger than the decline for Hispanics overall. Wages for Hispanics stayed below those of other groups, and in some ways have fallen further behind. By 2004, Hispanic men’s wages were 44.7 percent less than white men’s wages, after growing 1.3 percent since 2001. This difference is after a period when wages for Hispanic men grew faster than those of white men, whose wages increased by only 0.4 percent. In addition, Hispanic men’s wage growth has been less than that of black men, whose weekly wages grew by 2.4 percent. Hispanic women are the only group for which weekly wages declined from 2001 to 2004. Wages for Hispanic women were 18.1 percent lower than those of white women, after falling by 0.6 percent. During that same time period, wages rose for black women by 0.2 percent and for white women by 0.1 percent. Hispanics have low work-related benefits, such as health care coverage and pensions. American-born, as well as foreign-born, Hispanics have lower health insurance and pension coverage rates than

•

•

i

other groups. Three-quarters of white men have private health insurance, compared to 59 percent of black men and 48 percent of Hispanic men. Similar differences exist for women. In part, these differences are due to low education and are thus unlikely to be eliminated even in a jobs boom. During the 1990s expansion, private health insurance coverage among new Hispanic job entrants increased by 3.3 percentage points, less than one-half the white increase, and one-fifth the black increase. • Employment patterns for non-Hispanics are not different in areas with large undocumented immigrant populations. Changes in the employed share of the population and of hourly wages of whites, blacks and Hispanics in the states with the 15 largest undocumented immigrant populations are comparable to the patterns observed elsewhere. When it comes to jobs for Hispanics, geography matters. The drop in the employed share of Hispanics was smaller in metropolitan areas with larger Hispanic populations. The employed share of Mexican-American men in areas with Hispanic populations of less than 3 percent fell by 6.3 percentage points, compared to a 3 point decline in areas with Hispanic populations of 30 percent or more. Manufacturing’s decline particularly hurts Hispanic men. The manufacturing sector’s decline lowered potential Hispanic male employment by an estimated 2.3 percent by 2004. This is larger than the estimated declines of 1.7 and 1.8 percent for white and black men. The employment shift reduced Hispanic female employment by 0.1 percent, compared to increases of 1.5 and 1.6 percent for white and black women. Among Hispanics, Mexican Americans exhibit the greatest vulnerability to slow job growth. Mexican Americans have the lowest wages and the least health insurance and pension coverage out of any Hispanic group. Amid weak job growth, Mexican Americans saw some of the sharpest increases in economic insecurity. From 2001 to 2004, Mexican-American men were the only group of men for whom weekly wages fell. Mexican-American women had fewer jobs, falling wages, dropping health insurance coverage, lower pension coverage and higher food stamp usage in 2004 than in 2001, making them the only group of women for whom all measures of economic security deteriorated. ii

•

•

•

•

Compared to Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans trade off less full-time employment against higher wages and benefits. Full-time employment among Puerto Rican men and women dropped by 0.9 and 5.5 percent from 2001 to 2004. It stayed flat for Mexican-American men and dropped by 1.8 percent for Mexican-American women. With respect to wages and benefits Puerto Ricans did universally better than Mexican Americans. Cubans have the largest difference in wage trends by gender and have larger wage movements than Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. Weekly wages for Cuban men rose by 9.0 percent, compared to an increase of 4.6 percent for Puerto Ricans and a drop of 0.9 percent for Mexican-American men. In contrast, wages for Cuban women fell by 12.8 percent, compared to a 2.2 percent drop for Puerto Rican women and a 7.5 percent decline for Mexican-American women. Unionization is lower among Hispanics than among blacks or whites. Hispanic union members earn higher wages than nonunion Hispanics. The median nonunion weekly wage among Hispanics is $428, compared to the union median weekly wage of $679. This advantage is almost twice the advantage that black and white union members experience. Similarly, unionized Mexican-American women earn 70 percent more than nonunion Mexican-American women. Only 10.1 percent of Hispanics were union members in 2004, compared to 15.1 and 12.2 percent for blacks and whites. Hispanics benefit from a tight labor market. A booming economy with a strong labor market increases economic security. Over time and across localities, strong job growth is associated with more full-time and full-year work, higher health insurance and pension coverage rates, and lower food stamp usage.

•

•

•

iii

Introduction
Despite solid economic growth, this recovery has been marked by the slowest job growth of any recovery since World War II. Because the labor market is playing catch-up with past recoveries, many minorities and workers with the least skills who benefited from the 1990s boom are having difficulty maintaining their gains. This is true for African Americans and new job entrants (people with 0 to 10 years of potential experience). It is also true for the nation’s fastest growing minority group, Hispanics. The lack of strong job creation that typically accompanies resurgent economic growth has given rise to growing economic insecurities for Hispanics. Depending on their particular demographic characteristics, this has meant fewer jobs, lower wages, less health insurance, and declining pensions for various Hispanic groups. In particular, our results show that: • Job growth has been weak in this business cycle. By November 2005, 3.4 million new jobs were created, compared to 8.3 million during the 1990s recovery and 12.8 million during the recovery that started March 1978. The lack of employment growth has affected all Americans, but especially Hispanics and other minorities and new job entrants. There are important differences in employment opportunities by location. For instance, the deterioration in the employed share of the Mexican-American population from 2001 to 2004 was smaller in areas with larger Mexican-American populations. Manufacturing’s decline has adversely affected Hispanics, especially men. For Hispanic women, their disproportionate presence in the education and health services sector helps to offset job losses in the wholesale and retail trade. Changes in the employment-population ratios of Hispanics, whites, and blacks who reside in the states with the 15 largest undocumented immigrant populations are not significantly different from the patterns observed in the general population. Rising economic insecurities for Hispanics manifest themselves in various ways, depending on particular demographic characteristics. Lower wages, less health insurance coverage, fewer pensions, and increased usage of food stamp programs are prevalent among all Hispanic minorities, even among U.S.-born Hispanics. These deteriorations come on top of already lower wages, health insurance and pension coverage than whites. 1

•

•

•

•

•

•

Hispanics have the lowest union membership of major groups and thus benefit least from what unions do for workers. Only 10.1 percent of Hispanics belong to a union, compared to 15.1 percent of blacks and 12.2 percent of whites. Among Hispanics, unionization ranged from 19.8 percent for Puerto Ricans to a low of 2.9 percent for Cubans. Hispanics who are union members earn significantly higher wages than nonunion Hispanics. The median nonunion weekly wage among Hispanics is $428, compared to the union median weekly wage of $679, generating a 59 percent advantage to union membership. This advantage is almost twice the size of the advantage that black and white union members experience. Hispanics benefit from a tight labor market. A booming economy with a strong labor market increases economic security. Over time and across localities, strong job growth is associated with more full-time and full-year work, higher health insurance and pension coverage rates, and lower food stamp usage.

•

The Most Recent Business Cycle: The Catch-Up Economy Even with the acceleration in job creation since August 2003, the 2000 recovery, which started in November 2001, had slower employment growth than all prior recoveries since 1960, including the 1990s recovery, when employment also took a long period to recover (Figure 1). After 49 months of this recovery, just over 3.4 million new jobs were created, compared to 11.5 Figure 1: and 12.8 million during the recoveries that followed the 1980s and early 1970s recessions.

Cumulative Employment Growth During the Six Most Recent Recoveries Figure 1: Cumulative Employment Growth During the Six Most Recent Recoveries
Number (In Thousands)
15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000

Number (in Thousands)

0

0

1 7 1 3 35 5 971191 3 1 13115 117 219 2 3 2 5 25 27 291 313 33535 737 9 4 1 4 43445447 449 11 5 7 9 1 21 23 2 7 2 9 3 3 3 3 3 39 41 3 5 7 9

-5,000 -5,000 Months Since Start Recovery Months Since Startofof Recovery Nov 01 Nov-01 Nov 70 Nov-70 Mar 91 Mar-91 Feb 61 Feb-61 Nov 82 Nov-82 Jul 80 Jul-80 Mar 75 Mar-75

Source: Nonfarm Payroll Establishment data. U.S.data. U.S. Department ofof Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov). Each series is benchmarked toEach series is Nonfarm Payroll Establishment Department of Labor, Bureau Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov). the start of its Source: benchmarked to thethe NBER its recovery as defined by the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee. Figures are through the September recovery as defined by start of Business Cycle Dating Committee. Figures are through the September 2005, the 49th month of the current recovery. 1 2005, the 49th month of the current recovery.

2

Employment in many private sector industries, such as manufacturing and trade, in which Hispanics are concentrated, remained below that at the start of the recovery. By November 2005, employment was 9.4 percent lower in durable manufacturing and 10.6 percent lower in nondurable manufacturing than when the recovery began (figure 2). In contrast, by the 49th month of previous recoveries, nondurable and durable manufacturing had typically expanded 3.7 and 9.4 percent. Even with the recovery employment remained 11.0 percent lower in the broad ‘information’ sector, which was supposed to produce good jobs to replace declining employment in traditional manufacturing. During earlier recoveries this sector had grown at an average rate of 7.4 percent (figure 2). Figure 2: Cumulative Employment Change by Industry (in percent)
Total Nonfarm Mining Construction Durable Manufacturing Nondurable Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation Utilities Financial Activities Leisure Government Other Services Information Professional Business Services Temporary Help Services Education Health Services -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10.2 10 15 16.2 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 20.5 55.6 -11.0 -3.6 -9.4 -10.6 3.7 0.8 0.3 3.2 3.1 5.9 6.6 2.6 2.8 7.4 6.1 14.9 7.3 14.6 11.2 13.5 8.9 11.7 8.8 2.6 7.0 8.4 13.8 10.3

0.4

9.4

3

Employment growth in other sectors is slower than the average over the last six recoveries. This is true for wholesale and retail trade and even for interest rate sensitive industries, such as construction and financial activities. Construction grew by 8.4 percent, compared to 13.8 percent during the previous recoveries. Financial activities expanded by 5.9 percent during the current recovery, while growing by over 11.2 percent in previous recoveries. In contrast, employment has grown strongly in the education and health services sector, where many Hispanic women are employed. The slow jobs recovery shows some variation across states (table 1). Looking at the past three recoveries - 2001 to 2005, 1991 to 1995, and 1982 to 1986 – we see that average state employment growth was 10 percent in the two previous recoveries, while during the current recovery employment growth stagnated, falling at 0.3 percent. Looking at states with large Hispanic populations, Arizona and Florida had positive employment growth but that growth was two to three times slower than past recoveries. Texas, California and New York, which also have large Hispanic populations, had drops in employment during the current recovery of between 1 and 3 percent.
Table 1: 2004 Hispanic Population and Growth in Total Nonfarm Employment by State and Recovery
Hispanic Population Distribution State New Mexico California Texas Arizona Nevada Colorado Florida New York New Jersey Illinois Connecticut Utah Rhode Island Oregon Idaho District of Columbia Washington Kansas Hawaii Massachusetts Nebraska Georgia Within 43.3% 34.7% 34.6% 28.0% 22.8% 19.1% 19.0% 16.0% 14.9% 14.0% 10.6% 10.6% 10.3% 9.5% 8.9% 8.5% 8.5% 8.1% 7.9% 7.7% 6.9% 6.8% Across 2.0% 30.1% 18.8% 3.9% 1.3% 2.1% 8.0% 7.4% 3.1% 4.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 0.2% 1.2% 0.3% 1.4% Actual Change in Employment (Percent) 2005-2001 3.7% -0.6% -0.7% 6.3% 11.7% -2.3% 6.1% -3.1% -0.7% -5.0% -2.6% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 1.8% -0.7% -2.8% 5.2% -5.8% -0.5% -2.3% 1995-1991 16.6% 0.5% 11.8% 20.4% 25.0% 18.7% 13.3% 0.1% 2.9% 6.9% 0.4% 21.8% 4.4% 13.9% 19.9% -5.1% 7.8% 9.4% -1.2% 5.5% 10.6% 15.8% 1986-1982 11.0% 13.0% 4.8% 29.9% 16.7% 7.0% 22.3% 9.0% 12.8% 4.3% 11.9% 13.1% 13.3% 10.1% 5.1% 7.0% 12.8% 6.9% 9.8% 13.1% 7.0% 21.4%

4 6.7% 0.1% 1.8% It is quite Wyomingthat given the fiscal stimulus, low inflation, and low interest rates over8.0%period, job -9.8% has been much startling this growth lower than in previous recoveries during which the stimulus was much smaller.

4

Table 1: 2004 Hispanic Population and Growth in Total Nonfarm Employment by State and Recovery
(Continued) Hispanic Population Distribution State Oklahoma North Carolina Delaware Virginia Maryland Alaska Arkansas Indiana Wisconsin Pennsylvania Michigan Iowa Minnesota South Carolina Tennessee Louisiana Missouri Montana Ohio Alabama New Hampshire South Dakota Kentucky Mississippi North Dakota Vermont Maine West Virginia U.S. Average Within 6.3% 6.1% 5.8% 5.7% 5.4% 4.9% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 3.8% 3.7% 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% Across 0.5% 1.3% 0.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.3% 0.7% 0.6% 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Change in Employment (Percent) 2005-2001 -2.9% -2.2% 0.1% 1.8% 0.7% -0.3% -0.2% -0.7% -2.1% -2.0% -5.7% -2.3% -1.9% -1.8% -0.6% -0.3% -2.8% 3.3% -4.1% -0.2% -0.3% -1.0% -1.2% -0.7% 0.8% 0.6% -2.3% -1.1% -0.3% 1995-1991 8.6% 12.6% 7.2% 8.5% 3.9% 7.9% 14.2% 11.1% 11.1% 3.3% 9.8% 9.7% 11.3% 8.8% 14.4% 9.9% 9.2% 15.5% 8.4% 9.8% 12.0% 15.9% 11.4% 14.6% 11.5% 8.5% 4.8% 9.4% 10.0% 1986-1982 -7.6% 16.9% 17.0% 19.2% 16.5% 10.1% 13.0% 9.6% 8.4% 4.6% 14.5% 3.1% 10.8% 15.1% 13.3% -5.5% 11.4% 0.6% 8.4% 11.5% 24.3% 9.4% 9.8% 7.3% 0.1% 15.5% 14.9% -1.7% 10.0%

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from published BLS data: www.bls.gov. Hispanic population data come from Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Population by Race Alone and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States and States: July 1, 2004 (SC-EST2004-04). Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

To better understand how the geographic location of Hispanics affected their economic position in the recovery, we calculated an average state employment growth, weighted by each state’s Hispanic population. This shows that the employment in geographic areas populated by Hispanics fell by 0.16 percent from 2001 through the first half of 2005. Weighting each state’s growth by its white and black populations generates declines of 0.96 and 1.06 percent, suggesting that blacks and whites are more adversely impacted by the slow job growth.1 Hispanics did better in employment because the states with larger Hispanic populations are in the growing parts of the country. In states with at least 10 percent Hispanics, employment grew 5

by 0.15 percent. In states with at least 20 percent Hispanics, average employment increased by 0.28 percent. Growth in states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Florida help to offset stagnation and losses in California, Texas, New York and Illinois. The Labor Market Status of Hispanics: Economic Vulnerability Hispanics, particularly Mexican Americans, have a very high employment-population ratio and a high rate of working full-year, which shows that they are doing well in one dimension of the labor market. But they also have the lowest wages, lowest health insurance coverage rates, and lowest pension coverage rates. The main reason for this is that they have fewer years of schooling than other Americans (table 2). Hispanic men (women) have completed an average of 10.4 (10.6) years of schooling, compared to 13.2 (13.2) for non-Hispanic men (women). Although the education gap is narrower among new entrants to the labor market, Hispanics still have completed fewer years of schooling than other Americans. The lower educational attainment of Mexican-American men explains a large portion of the gap. Mexican Americans comprise over 60 percent of the Hispanic population. Another key difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics is that approximately 90 percent of non-Hispanics are U.S.-born, compared to about 50 percent of Hispanics. Many of the foreign-born are from Mexico. While the media often focuses on unemployment rates, most labor economists concentrate on employment-population rates. This is because employment rates are more clearly measured: employment and population are sharp concepts whereas unemployment depends on labor participation decisions, which vary with job opportunities, as workers become discouraged by poor opportunities or encouraged by good ones. Published BLS data indicate that Hispanic men have employment-population ratios that are 24 points higher than Hispanic women (76.1 versus 52.1) and higher than the ratios of both white and black men. Hispanic, white and black women all have similar employment-population ratios, ranging from 52 to 58 percent. Looking at the Hispanic population in even more detail, we see that Mexican Americans have the highest employment-population ratio followed by Cubans and Puerto Ricans. Among teenagers, Hispanic women and blacks have the lowest employment-population ratios. These low ratios potentially reflect school enrollment decisions, as people who are still going to college are counted in the relevant population. When we limit ourselves to young high school dropouts and high school graduates who are not enrolled in college, Hispanic employment looks much better. High school dropouts of any race and ethnicity are significantly disadvantaged in the labor market, especially black high school dropouts. Employment-population ratios range from 12.3 percent for black youth, to 37.7 percent for white youth, and 39.3 percent for Hispanic youth. Finally, looking at the proportion of the workers who work full-year as another measure of the 6

Table 2: 2004 Summary Statistics
Panel A: Men All Years of Schooling Potential Experience % with no more than High School Degree Age MSA’s Hispanic Population (%) Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban South American Other Spanish 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3 or Higher Generation
rd

Non-Hispanics 13.2 24.7 48.0 43.9 10.0

Hispanics 10.4 21.0 72.0 37.4 26.0 63.0 9.0 4.0 18.0 6.0

Mexican 9.9 20.4 77.0 36.3 29.0

Puerto Rican 11.6 21.1 67.0 38.7 14.0

Cuban 11.9 30.5 58.0 48.5 32.0

5.0 5.0 90.0 38.0 10.0 12.5 3.8 56.0 22.2 10.0

56.0 15.0 29.0 76.0 22.0 11.8 4.3 70.0 22.1 25.0 65.0 9.0 2.0 18.0 6.0

57.0 17.0 26.0 80.0 25.0 11.6 4.4 74.0 21.9 27.0

2.0 6.0 91.0 65.0 13.0 11.7 3.9 71.0 21.6 15.0

76.0 18.0 6.0 90.0 18.0 13.0 4.1 47.0 23.0 31.0

Reside in MSA with Large Undocumented Population State’s Hispanic Population (%) New Entrants Years of Schooling Potential Experience % with no more than High School Diploma Age MSA’s Hispanic Population (%) Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban South American Other Spanish 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd or Higher Generation Reside in MSA with Large Undocumented Population State’s Hispanic Population (%)

4.0 4.0 91.0 37.0 10.0

42.0 27.0 31.0 75.0 22.0

43.0 28.0 28.0 79.0 24.0

3.0 10.0 86.0 63.0 13.0

37.0 53.0 10.0 87.0 18.0

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the 2004 March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. The detailed Hispanic categories are based on the BLS definitions. The Non-Hispanic sample is limited to whites and blacks.

strength of employment, we see in table 3 that Hispanics have a high rate of full-year employment. Among Hispanics, Mexican Americans have the highest percentage who work full-year. But the flip side of the good employment record is low weekly wages and benefits. Hispanics fall markedly below whites and less markedly below blacks in the proportion of the employed with private health insurance and pension coverage. They have the lowest wages, lowest health insurance rates, and lowest pension coverage (table 3). Compared to whites and 7

Table 2 cont.: Summary Statistics in 2004
Panel B: Women All Years of Schooling Potential Experience % with no more than High School Diploma Age MSA’s Hispanic Population (%) Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban South American Other Spanish 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd or Higher Generation Reside in MSA with Large Undocumented Population State’s Hispanic Population (%) New Entrants Years of Schooling Potential Experience % with no more than High School Diploma Age MSA’s Hispanic Population (%) Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban South American Other Spanish 1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd or Higher Generation Reside in MSA with Large Undocumented Population State’s Hispanic Population (%) 5.0 4.0 91.0 37.0 10.0 12.9 3.9 47.0 22.8 10.0 12.2 4.1 63.0 22.2 26.0 63.0 10.0 3.0 18.0 6.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 75.0 23.0 35.0 33.0 32.0 79.0 25.0 2.0 10.0 88.0 65.0 13.0 32.0 60.0 8.0 82.0 18.0 11.9 4.2 68.0 22.1 29.0 12.1 3.9 63.0 22.0 14.0 13.3 4.7 44.0 23.9 28.0 5.0 5.0 89.0 38.0 10.0 Non-Hispanics 13.2 25.6 46.0 44.8 10.0 Hispanics 10.6 22.4 69.0 39.0 27.0 60.0 10.0 4.0 19.0 7.0 51.0 16.0 33.0 77.0 23.0 51.0 19.0 30.0 82.0 26.0 2.0 5.0 93.0 65.0 13.0 74.0 22.0 4.0 90.0 19.0 Mexican 10.1 21.6 74.0 37.7 31.0 Puerto Rican 11.8 22.0 63.0 39.7 15.0 Cuban 11.8 30.8 58.0 48.6 31.0

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the 2004 March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. The Non-Hispanic sample is limited to whites and blacks.

blacks, Mexican-American outcomes are worse. One exception is that Mexican-American usage of food stamps is lower than that of blacks. The only Hispanic group that has food stamp usage rates similar to blacks is Puerto Ricans. We speculate that this may be due to Puerto Ricans not facing the same barriers to entering the program as other Hispanic groups. For all of these outcomes, excluding foreign-born individuals does little to close the differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

8

Table 3: 2004 Labor Market Outcomes by Gender and Detailed Race and Ethnicity
Panel A: Men All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 54.8% 39.8% 54.5% 57.4% 41.3% 48.3% $ 351 $ 338 $ 351 $ 339 $ 364 $ 357 73.5% 53.7% 43.0% 41.8% 43.4% 53.3% 27.5% 26.3% 18.7% 16.8% 27.1% 32.4% 4.7% 14.2% 9.2% 8.7% 22.9% 8.3% Work Full-Year 67.7% 54.8% 69.0% 70.7% 57.2% 63.2% Average Weekly Wages $ 686 $ 527 $ 474 $ 446 $ 560 $ 643 Private Health Insurance 77.4% 58.6% 48.1% 45.7% 54.1% 53.4% Have Pension 47.9% 44.1% 25.8% 23.3% 38.1% 30.9% Food Stamps 3.3% 10.2% 7.6% 8.0% 14.0% 8.0%

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. Both part-time and full-time workers are in the sample. Weekly wage is the ratio of income from wages and salary in calendar year and weeks worked. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

Table 3 cont.: 2004 Labor Market Outcomes by Gender and Detailed Race and Ethnicity
Panel B: U.S.-Born Men (Generations 2 and 3+) All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 54.6% 38.1% 47.4% 49.4% 40.1% 44.7% $ 347 $ 330 $ 349 $ 336 $ 365 $ 384 73.8% 53.2% 50.8% 51.4% 43.0% 65.8% 27.4% 26.5% 23.7% 22.6% 27.2% 34.8% 4.8% 15.0% 10.4% 8.9% 23.3% 0.0% Work Full-Year 67.7% 53.3% 60.4% 61.2% 56.8% 71.4% Average Weekly Wages $ 685 $ 525 $ 517 $ 488 $ 568 $ 761 Private Health Insurance 77.7% 58.6% 57.7% 57.1% 54.2% 81.6% Have Pension 48.1% 45.2% 36.5% 35.6% 38.5% 38.8% Food Stamps 3.3% 10.7% 8.5% 8.1% 14.0% 1.0%

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. Both part-time and full-time workers are in the sample. Weekly wage is the ratio of income from wages and salary in calendar year and weeks worked. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

9

Table 3 cont.: 2004 Labor Market Outcomes by Gender and Detailed Race and Ethnicity
Panel C: Women All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 50.1% 42.5% 40.3% 39.1% 44.8% 53.8% $ 268 $ 305 $ 274 $ 266 $ 267 $ 415 74.4% 51.3% 46.8% 43.8% 51.2% 70.3% 25.9% 26.9% 18.0% 16.8% 16.8% 34.4% 6.8% 20.9% 11.8% 11.6% 19.7% 6.6% Work Full-Year 54.0% 49.8% 46.5% 44.2% 49.4% 45.1% Average Weekly Wages $ 413 $ 412 $ 348 $ 329 $ 383 $ 461 Private Health Insurance 76.6% 56.2% 48.2% 45.7% 53.8% 51.2% Have Pension 43.4% 43.2% 28.4% 27.2% 34.8% 37.0% Food Stamps 5.0% 16.5% 11.8% 12.0% 20.2% 11.3%

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. Both part-time and full-time workers are in the sample. Weekly wage is the ratio of income from wages and salary in calendar year and weeks worked. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

Table 3 cont.: 2004 Labor Market Outcomes by Gender and Detailed Race and Ethnicity
Panel D: U.S.-Born Women (Generations 2 and 3+) All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 50.3% 42.2% 41.6% 42.0% 44.2% 50.0% $ 266 $ 307 $ 270 $ 267 $ 265 $ 379 74.6% 50.4% 53.3% 51.4% 50.7% 74.2% 25.9% 27.0% 20.0% 19.7% 15.8% 38.1% 6.8% 21.9% 13.1% 12.9% 19.9% 6.5% Work FullYear 54.4% 49.5% 49.5% 49.5% 48.9% 59.6% Average Weekly Wages $ 411 $ 413 $ 368 $ 352 $ 383 $ 542 Private Health Insurance 76.9% 56.1% 56.8% 56.0% 53.4% 72.8% Have Pension 43.5% 43.6% 34.6% 33.9% 34.2% 45.0% Food Stamps 5.0% 17.1% 13.2% 12.5% 20.3% 4.4%

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. Both part-time and full-time workers are in the sample. Weekly wage is the ratio of income from wages and salary in calendar year and weeks worked. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

10

Linking Industry and Demographic Change The changing distribution of employment among industries potentially affects Hispanic Americans differently than other Americans, because Hispanics are concentrated in a different set of industries. Table 4 shows the distribution of employment by industry in 2001 by race, ethnicity and gender. Men are relatively more likely than women to be employed in manufacturing, an industry that lost jobs from 2001 to 2004. They are also concentrated in trade, an industry that has shown little if any growth. Mexican-American and white men are overrepresented in construction, a growing industry. Black men are disproportionately employed in services, education, health and government. Women are concentrated in slow growing wholesale and retail trade, but also in the growing education and health services sector. We translate these patterns into expected shifts in demand for a demographic group’s employment by computing a fixed weight index of the potential shift in employment for a group. To do this, we multiply each group’s 2001 industry employment share by its industry employment growth from 2001 to 2004, and sum the products to obtain a weighted average growth of employment. Table 5 reports these estimated changes. For men, the shift due to changes in employment in the industries in which they work ranges from -1.7 percent for white and black men to -2.5 percent for Mexican-American men. The main reason for the negative expected employment growth for men overall and for the differences among the groups is their greater concentrations in the manufacturing sector. The expected declines for out of school white, black and Mexican-American men are larger than for other men because proportionately fewer of these men are employed in education and health services, where employment expanded most in the recovery. Larger shares of these young men are employed in trade and professional and business services, major sectors that have contracted. In contrast with the shifts in employment against men, the fixed weight industry growth calculations suggest employment increases for white women, black women, and some Hispanic women. The estimates indicate that Mexican-American women’s employment stagnates. For all white and black women, the predicted increases in employment are 1.5 and 1.6 percent. The increases are 0.6 and 0.9 percent for Cuban and Puerto Rican women. The estimates for new entrants suggest modest growth and a decline for out of school youth. These expected increases are driven by women’s presence in the education and health services sector. Larger shares of older women are in this sector, while younger and less-skilled women tend to be employed in trade and professional and business services.

11

Table 4: 2001 SIC Industry Distributions by Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Experience
Men White 1% 12% 17% 9% 20% 5% 12% 14% 5% Men White 1% 11% 13% 6% 30% 4% 15% 13% 3% 4% 2% 2% 15% 8% 7% 10% 2% 17% 15% 13% 21% 4% 3% 2% 5% 31% 32% 31% 31% 10% 6% 5% 11% 12% 14% 15% 10% 5% 11% 32% 6% 16% 17% 3% 5% 15% 17% 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Black Hispanic Puerto Rican Cuban Mexican American 0% 1% 6% 3% 31% 7% 14% 32% 3% White Black 0% 1% 6% 6% 28% 8% 15% 33% 4% Hispanic 0% 1% 9% 4% 34% 7% 15% 26% 2% 6% 3% 2% 4% 4% 4% 15% 7% 6% 12% 12% 37% 40% 7% 14% 14% 12% 16% 16% 12% 13% 4% 3% 2% 5% 5% 8% 7% 19% 24% 23% 23% 25% 22% 17% 24% 6% 18% 27% 3% 14% 7% 6% 12% 11% 4% 6% 4% 16% 18% 19% 19% 12% 9% 9% 14% 9% 16% 18% 7% 13% 2% 1% 1% 1% 16% 3% 25% 5% 17% 26% 4% Women Mexican American 0% 1% 10% 3% 35% 7% 15% 25% 3% Puerto Rican 0% 0% 7% 6% 30% 7% 15% 31% 3% Cuban 0% 1% 8% 5% 32% 8% 12% 31% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Black Hispanic Puerto Rican Cuban White Black Mexican American Hispanic Mexican American Women Puerto Rican 0% 1% 12% 6% 19% 8% 14% 36% 4% Cuban 0% 0% 12% 5% 21% 11% 15% 31% 3%

Panel A: All

Industry

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation & Public Utilities

Trade

FIRE

Professional & Business Services

Education and Health Services

Public Administration

Panel B: New Entrants

24

Industry

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation & Public Utilities

Trade

FIRE

Professional. & Business Services

Education and Health Services

Public Administration

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the 2001 ORG CPS file. The columns are the share of a particular group in each industry. All corresponds to all men at least 18 years of age who work in the either the public or private sector. New entrants refer to respondents with no more than 10 years of potential experience. Out of school youth refers to 16-to-24-year-olds who were not enrolled in school at the time of the survey. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Table 4 cont.: 2001 Industry Distribution by Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Experience
Men White 1% 19% 15% 5% 34% 1% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 0% 8% 2% 2% 20% 14% 13% 2% 1% 1% 36% 31% 30% 45% 6% 18% 17% 1% 9% 4% 4% 3% 13% 16% 17% 8% 8% 20% 22% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 4% 39% 6% 18% 23% 2% Black Hispanic Mexican American White Black Women Hispanic 0% 1% 13% 3% 41% 6% 19% 14% 1% Mexican American 0% 2% 14% 3% 41% 5% 19% 12% 1%

Panel C: Out of School Youth

Industry

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and Public Utilities

Trade

FIRE

Professional & Business Services

Education and Health Services

Public Administration

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the 2001 ORG CPS file. The columns are the share of a particular group in each industry. All corresponds to all men at least 18 years of age who work in the either the public or private sector. New entrants refer to respondents with no more than 10 years of potential experience. Out of school youth refers to 16-to-24year-olds who were not enrolled in school at the time of the survey. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Table 5: Expected 2001 to 2004 Change in Employment (Assuming 2001 Industry Shares and Actual CES Employment Change)
Men All New Entrants Out of School Youth Women All New Entrants Out of School Youth 1.5% 1.3% -0.5% 1.6% 1.3% 0.3% -0.1% 0.4% -1.2% -0.3% 0.1% -1.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% White -1.7% -1.2% -2.3% Black -1.8% -1.4% -2.1% Hispanic -2.3% -1.8% -2.4% Mexican American -2.5% -2.0% -2.5% Puerto Rican -2.3% -1.5% Cuban -1.4% -0.3%

Notes: Entries are constructed by multiplying a demographic group’s 2001 industry employment shares (Table 4) by the industry’s percentage employment growth from 2001 to 2004, and summing the products to obtain a weighted average growth of employment in the industries that employed the group. Industry employment growth is the difference from 2001 to 2004. In 2003 the industry codes changed. To link 2001 with 2004, we had to make several assumptions. The following list the 2001 SIC (2003 SIC) codes. If an industry shown in Table 8 is not listed below, a direct match could be made: Transportation (Transportation and Warehousing), Communication and Public Utilities (Information), Utility and Sanitary Services (Utilities), Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (Financial Activities), Entertainment and Recreation (Leisure and Hospitality), Professional and Business Services (Personal services including private households, business, auto and repair services, Personal services excluding private households), Education and Health Services (Hospitals, Medical services, except hospitals, educational services, Social services), Other Professional Services (Other services). We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Undocumented Immigration Our analysis only captures the experiences of Hispanics who show up in the formal government data and is likely to miss the experiences of the undocumented immigrants who have received a great deal of public attention. Most analysts believe that the 2000 Census and ensuing Current Population Surveys capture a large portion of the undocumented immigrants, so that our results are likely to apply to the bulk of the Hispanic population, including the majority of undocumented migrants. One way to see if our results are sensitive to possible mis-measurement due to undocumented workers not covered in the data is to see whether the results vary between states with the largest undocumented populations, where the undercount will be most serious, and other states. In 2000, 15 states contained 87 percent of the undocumented population.2 Table 6 reports these results for the current recovery and previous two recoveries. Although standard errors are not reported, our narrative reflects whether the estimates are measured with precision.3 The estimates are not different from those derived from the full sample. Even new entrants in those states that have the largest undocumented immigrant populations do not appear to be differentially impacted. Still, we would expect the undocumented who are missed in the CPS to have a somewhat different work experience than those who are counted. They probably have higher employment rates (which would strengthen our finding that Hispanics have such a high employment rate) but are in worse jobs than others (which would strengthen our finding that Hispanics are in low wage jobs with few benefits). 14

Table 6: Change in Employment-Population Ratios by Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Experience from End of Recession through Third Year of Recovery (Percentage Point Change)
Panel A: All States All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 3.9 7.6 5.5 6.2 8.2 3.6 0.1 -0.3 -1.3 -2.0 1.3 -3.2 Male All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 3.7 5.8 3.8 7.7 9.3 3.2 -0.9 0.1 -1.1 -1.4 2.4 -5.3 -3.5 -5.4 -3.7 -6.5 -1.9 -6.7 4.3 4.4 3.1 3.5 6.6 14.0 0.5 2.6 0.2 -0.4 0.1 -0.2 -3.4 -4.4 -3.0 -4.0 1.7 1.4 1985-82 2.2 3.8 3.0 3.1 3.7 4.5 1994-91 -0.5 -1.0 -0.1 0.9 -0.2 -4.6 2004-01 -2.0 -3.7 -1.2 -2.0 3.6 -0.5 1985-82 4.1 3.7 2.8 3.1 3.5 9.5 -2.6 -5.1 -5.5 -5.8 -5.5 -6.5 4.4 5.4 3.1 3.2 1.9 12.6 1.0 2.0 -0.2 0.5 -3.4 1.6 Female 1994-91 1.4 2.1 -0.4 0.3 0.1 -0.3 2004-01 -1.1 -2.2 -1.7 -2.4 0.8 1.6 -2.1 -4.3 -2.8 -3.6 -0.1 1.2 1985-82 2.4 4.9 2.6 2.4 3.6 4.6 Men 1994-91 0.2 -0.9 -0.4 0.5 -1.4 -3.8 2004-01 -1.9 -3.8 -1.8 -2.4 1.1 -1.1 1985-82 3.9 4.6 2.8 2.8 2.4 9.6 Women 1994-91 2.2 1.2 -0.4 0.6 -2.2 0.2 2004-01 -0.9 -2.7 -1.4 -2.4 -0.5 1.8

Panel B: States with Large Undocumented Immigrant Populations

Notes: Author’s calculations from the micro data Outgoing Rotation Group Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. States categorized as having the largest undocumented immigrant populations are as follows: California, Texas, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Massachusetts, Illinois, Nevada, Virginia, Washington, Colorado, Georgia, and Florida. In 2000, these states contained 87 percent of the undocumented population. In 1990, the share was 90 percent. The estimates were obtained from the Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/53.pdf and http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

The Sluggish Employment Recovery and Growing Economic Insecurity The slow pace of job growth in the 2001 recovery led to greater Hispanic economic vulnerability, particularly for Mexican Americans. From 2001 to 2004, the employed shares of Hispanic men and women – their employment-population ratios – fell by 1.8 and 1.4 percentage

15

Table 7: Change in Labor Market Outcomes from 2001 to 2004 by Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Experience (Percentage Point Change)
Panel A: Men All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban Panel B: Women All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban -1.9 -2.9 -4.5 -5.1 2.5 -13.3 $ -4.3 $ -1.1 $ -7.2 $ -7.3 $ -7.9 $ 11.7 -3.1 -4.2 -3.1 -4.0 1.5 -5.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.7 -2.3 1.5 14.4 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.4 -1.7 1.1 -2.4 -2.6 -1.4 -1.8 -5.5 -5.1 $ 0.2 $ -0.5 $ 0.9 $ 0.0 $ -1.6 $ 17.8 -4.3 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.7 -4.2 -0.1 0.6 0.3 -1.1 2.0 8.5 0.8 1.6 1.8 2.6 0.9 0.7 -0.5 -1.5 -3.2 -2.2 4.1 -0.1 $ 0.2 $ -0.5 $ -3.5 $ 0.0 $ -1.6 $ 17.8 -2.2 -3.0 -3.1 -2.1 2.9 0.5 -1.3 1.9 -0.5 -1.0 1.0 8.4 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.6 9.4 0.1 Work Full-Year Weekly Wage -1.8 -1.1 0.0 0.0 -0.9 5.5 $ 0.4 $ 2.4 $ 1.3 $ -0.9 $ 4.6 $ 9.0 Health Insurance Coverage -3.0 -2.4 -2.0 -1.7 0.4 0.3 Included in Pension Plan at Their Firms -2.1 0.6 -1.4 -1.7 -1.6 -1.2 Food Stamp Usage 0.6 1.8 1.1 1.6 3.0 0.9

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

points (table 6). This deterioration is concentrated among Mexican Americans. Their ratio fell by 2.4 percentage points. Hispanic new entrant men experienced the largest erosions in their employment-population ratios, falling by 5.5 percentage points. The ratio of new entrant Hispanic women dropped by 2.8 percentage points. Considering the five previously discussed indicators of economic security suggests increased Hispanic labor market insecurity (table 7). Full-year work trended downward for 16

Table 8: Changes in U.S.-Born Labor Market Outcomes by Gender and Race (Percentage Point Change)
Panel A: Men Work FullYear White Black Hispanic Panel B: Women White Black Hispanic -0.5 -1.2 -1.6 0.1 0.2 -0.6 -2.3 -3.1 -1.8 -0.1 0.6 -1.0 0.8 1.4 1.6 -1.9 -1.1 -1.1 Weekly Wages 0.3 2.9 0.5 Health Insurance Coverage -3.0 -2.3 -2.0 Included in Pension Plan at Their Firms -2.1 1.1 -2.6 Food Stamps 0.6 1.8 0.8

Notes: Authors’ tabulations from the March Annual Demographic files of the Current Population Survey. To be included in the sample, an individual had to be at least 16 years of age. To be included in the wage sample, the individual also had to work in the public or private sector. A new entrant is an individual with no more than 10 years of potential experience. U.S.-born individuals are second generation, third and higher generations. Standard errors are available upon request.

most Hispanics, especially for women. Weekly wages show a mixed pattern. Health insurance coverage either remained the same or fell. For example, coverage among Mexican-American men and women fell 1.7 and 2.0 points. The decline in coverage was even larger for new entrant Mexican Americans. Other measures also indicate rising insecurity for some groups of Hispanics. During the recovery, Mexican Americans experienced a decline in the share of workers that actually received a pension. Food stamp usage, another measure of economic security, rose during the recovery for Mexican-American women by 2.6 percent. These findings remain when we limit our analysis to U.S.-born individuals. Even nonimmigrant Hispanics have been adversely impacted by the slow pace of job growth. Table 8 reports our five indicators for non-immigrant whites, blacks and Hispanics. Most striking is the decline in Hispanic health insurance coverage and the increase in food stamp usage. Is Growing Economic Insecurity a New Feature of Recoveries? We now place the 2001 to 2004 developments for Hispanics in a broader context. We compare changes in our list of outcomes during the current business cycle to previous business cycles. Table 6 reports this analysis for employment-population ratios.4,5 Hispanics gained employment during the 1980s recovery, followed by stagnation during the 1990s recovery, and losses during the current recovery. This pattern holds for most Hispanic groups, with the losses during the current recovery larger for Hispanic new entrants and out of 17

school youth. They are more sensitive to fluctuations in the overall economy than the general population. The employed share of the Hispanic population increased by 2.6-2.8 points from 1982 to 1985 (table 6). During the 1990s recovery, Hispanic ratios remained unchanged. From 2001 to 2004, their ratios fell by 1.8 and 1.4 percentage points. The movement of MexicanAmerican employment-population ratios in each recovery dominates the overall changes. Although not measured with a high level of precision, the estimated 2001 to 2004 changes for Cubans and Puerto Ricans show either stagnation or deterioration. Do changes in employment-population ratios differ between areas with larger and smaller proportions of Hispanics? To get a first cut at this issue, we examined whether a systematic relationship exists between changes in employment-population ratios during the recovery and a metropolitan area’s share of Hispanics (table 9). In fact, an area’s Hispanic population is associated with smaller reductions in Mexican-American employment-population ratios. The reverse is the case for blacks. Blacks and whites in metropolitan areas with larger Hispanic populations experienced larger drops in their employment-population ratios. The pattern holds for new entrants as well. This effect on black and white new entrants in the current recovery is larger than during the 1990s recovery. We also obtain qualitatively similar findings when we limit our samples to U.S.-born individuals.
Table 9: Changes in Employment-Population Ratios by Percent of Hispanic Metropolitan Area Population
Panel A: Men All White Black Hispanic Mexican American New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American 2.1 -1.6 10.5 3.8 -1.0 -4.5 -6.9 -10.9 -0.3 2.4 -1.0 -5.5 -4.1 -10.3 -10.2 -5.8 -1.1 0.0 -1.7 -0.1 -5.9 -12.2 -9.2 -8.5 -1.9 -2.5 -1.4 -2.5 -0.5 -14.8 -6.3 -6.2 1994-91 1.2 -0.1 -0.4 9.6 <3% 2004-01 -1.1 -2.8 -1.8 -6.3 0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -3.6 3 to 9% 1994-91 2004-01 -2.1 -6.6 -1.8 -4.1 -0.4 -1.3 -0.4 0.4 9 to 30% 1994-91 2004-01 -3.9 -7.0 -1.8 -4.1 30% or more 1994-91 -1.6 -2.0 -0.4 0.8 2004-01 -0.7 -7.4 -1.8 -3.0

Notes: Author’s calculations from the micro data Outgoing Rotation Group Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

18

Table 9 cont.: Changes in Employment-Population Ratios by Hispanic Metropolitan Area Population
Panel B: Women All White Black Hispanic Mexican American New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American 1.3 4.1 -4.4 12.6 -3.3 -5.6 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.6 -2.3 -0.4 -1.1 -6.9 -5.0 -3.8 1.1 0.5 0.1 -0.2 -4.8 -9.8 -6.1 -5.7 0.0 -2.9 -1.0 -1.4 -7.1 9.9 -3.0 -5.3 1994-91 1.6 1.7 -0.4 7.6 <3% 2004-01 -0.6 -2.1 -1.4 -5.1 2.5 0.6 -0.4 -5.8 3 to 9% 1994-91 2004-01 -0.3 -4.8 -1.4 -0.2 9 to 30% 1994-91 1.6 1.1 -0.4 -0.3 2004-01 -0.7 -4.5 -1.4 -2.2 30% or more 1994-91 0.2 -1.7 -0.4 0.2 2004-01 -2.6 2.8 -1.4 -3.4

Notes: Author’s calculations from the micro data Outgoing Rotation Group Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Another measure of economic security is the share of people working all year (table 10). During the 1982-1985 recovery, full-year employment increased for all Hispanics. This pattern of gains begins to break down from 1991-1994, with losses emerging in the most recent business cycle. Most Hispanics experience a reduction in full-year work from 2001 to 2004. The shift from gains to losses is quite prevalent among new entrants. Their losses exceed the losses in the general population.
Table 10: Change in Percent Working Full-Year by Recovery and Expansion (Percentage Point Change)
Recovery Men All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 4.6 9.5 5.4 7.6 4.5 7.2 0.6 0.7 5.4 -4.3 -7.4 1.4 -2.4 -2.6 -3.2 -1.8 -5.5 -5.1 4.2 6.0 2.4 1.0 -4.1 16.3 -1.0 -0.3 2.4 -2.6 -5.7 -2.8 -1.9 -2.9 -4.5 -5.1 2.5 -13.3 9.7 16.1 11.0 10.8 21.4 13.1 1.2 0.5 11.0 4.6 5.9 4.2 7.4 10.2 5.5 2.4 8.5 10.1 1.8 11.4 5.5 6.9 12.0 -14.3 1982-85 2.8 6.7 3.0 3.7 3.4 2.8 1991-94 0.7 2.1 -2.6 1.0 -1.1 -1.8 2001-04 -1.8 -1.1 0.0 0.0 -0.9 5.5 1982-85 2.9 4.5 1.2 1.6 -1.7 1.6 Women 1991-94 1.0 -0.3 -3.7 -0.5 0.7 0.7 2001-04 -0.5 -1.5 -1.4 -2.2 4.1 -0.1 6.4 10.9 6.6 5.7 12.6 5.2 Men 1982-89 2.8 3.4 4.7 8.2 4.4 1.9 6.7 8.4 6.5 5.7 6.1 4.4 Expansion Women 1991-00 4.3 7.8 6.3 7.4 13.1 4.1 1991-00 1982-89

Notes: Author’s calculations from the micro data of the March Annual Demographic Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

19

Table 11: Change in Hourly Wages by Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Experience from End of Recession through Third Year of Recovery
Men All White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban -5.2 -10.8 -8.4 -10.5 -6.1 7.0 -2.4 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7 -8.2 5.6 -2.9 0.3 -0.3 0.0 -11.1 -11.7 -2.3 -3.9 -4.2 -5.1 -0.8 -3.1 -0.8 -2.3 -2.1 -3.0 -4.9 16.6 -1.0 -3.7 -0.4 -1.3 3.2 5.6 1985-82 -2.7 -6.4 -4.3 -4.9 -5.6 6.3 1994-91 -0.9 0.4 0.9 0.3 -0.4 13.7 2004-01 -1.0 -0.6 0.8 1.0 -4.9 -2.9 1985-82 0.1 0.6 -2.2 -4.3 0.7 2.5 Women 1994-91 2.3 2.0 1.1 1.1 0.6 12.5 2004-01 2.3 1.3 1.2 -0.3 1.0 4.2

Notes: Author’s calculations from the micro data Outgoing Rotation Group Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. Out of school youth are non-enrolled 16-to-24-year-olds. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Further, Hispanic earnings data reveal a mixed pattern of change. Changes in real earnings during the recoveries are dominated by the trend decline in real earnings that occurred from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, broken only by the increases that occurred during the second half of the 1990s. As a result, real earnings during the 1980s and 1990s recoveries fell. Real earnings began to increase after 1995, breaking the two-decade decline. The extremely low unemployment rates of the 1990s boom that lasted for several years helped to generate the real earnings growth. A return to stagnation and decline occurred even for Hispanics during the current recovery, further dispelling public perceptions that Hispanics have received major benefits (table 11). Other Indications of Growing Economic Insecurity Recent patterns of job growth are associated with trends in Hispanic private health insurance coverage, pension coverage and food stamp usage. Table 12 suggests that the absence of strong and sustained job growth and increased expenses of these forms of compensation have reduced the competitive pressures for employers to provide benefits. For the lowest paid workers, it has increased the need for social support. For Hispanic women and many other groups, employer-provided health insurance coverage increased from 1991 to 1994. Hispanic men were the exception. Their coverage fell. From 2001 to 2004, Hispanic employer-provided health insurance coverage decreased. The drop in coverage occurs among Mexican-American men and 20

Table 12: Change in Health Insurance, Pensions and Food Stamp Usage by Expansion and Recovery (Percentage Point Change)
Panel A: Health Insurance Coverage Men Group White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 4.8 9.8 -2.2 -2.9 -7.1 3.4 -4.3 -1.0 -3.1 -2.0 -2.7 -4.2 4.5 8.6 1.6 2.5 -8.5 1.4 -3.1 -4.2 -3.1 -4.0 1.5 -5.0 7.9 14.2 3.3 2.4 9.5 0.7 7.7 17.0 8.0 6.3 12.4 16.8 1991-94 1991-94 2.2 8.0 -0.5 -0.6 -0.5 3.7 Recovery Women 2001-04 1991-94 1991-94 2001-04 2001-04 2001-04 -3.0 -2.4 -2.0 -1.7 0.4 0.3 3.2 6.7 2.3 3.7 -0.5 0.5 -2.2 -3.0 -1.5 -2.1 2.9 0.5 1991-00 Expansion Men Women

2.7 11.8 1.8 1.2 7.6 -1.8

3.4 11.7 7.2 7.9 10.9 1.3

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the micro data March Annual Demographic Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the 1982 to 1989 and 1991 to 2000 expansions, and the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

women, and is similar to the drop in coverage of whites and blacks. New labor market entrants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds appear to have lower likelihoods of working in firms that offer health insurance. Economic insecurity for Hispanics also increased due to low and falling pension benefits. With respect to pensions, the share of Hispanics with a pension increased during the 1990s recovery, but fell during the most recent one. Changes among Hispanics are similar to those of whites and blacks, but Hispanics are more insecure, because they have much lower private health insurance and pension coverage. Mexican Americans drive the Hispanic trends. Finally, increased use of food stamps by Hispanics since 2001 further reveals the growth in economic insecurity.6 As for blacks, this growth in insecurity is not new for Hispanics. The food stamp usage of both groups grew from 1991 to 1994. For most groups, the growth in food stamp usage is similar across recoveries (table 12). The table shows the ability of strong job growth to reduce usage. From 1991 to 2000, Hispanic men and women’s usage fell by 7.9 and 8.4 percent, respectively. 21

Table 12 cont.: Change in Health Insurance, Pensions and Food Stamp Usage by Expansion and Recovery (Percentage Point Change)
Panel B: Workers included in Pension Plan Men Group White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban 0.7 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.3 6.6 -1.3 1.9 -0.5 -1.0 1.0 8.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 4.2 -4.4 -0.1 -0.2 -0.7 -2.3 1.5 14.4 3.2 -2.4 0.8 0.5 3.3 3.3 4.4 4.5 2.0 1.8 11.3 3.1 1991-94 1.5 3.6 0.2 0.6 -1.4 2.0 2001-04 -2.1 0.6 -2.9 -1.7 -1.6 -1.2 1991-94 2.2 0.8 1.4 3.3 -2.6 -1.5 Recovery Women 2001-04 -0.1 0.6 -1.2 -1.1 2.0 8.5 5.1 1.2 0.8 0.4 4.7 1.4 7.3 3.1 2.5 3.6 1.9 4.0 1991-00 Expansion Men Women

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the micro data March Annual Demographic Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the 1982 to 1989 and 1991 to 2000 expansions, and the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

Table 12 cont.: Change in Health Insurance, Pensions and Food Stamp Usage by Expansion and Recovery (Percentage Point Change)
Panel C: Food Stamp Usage Men Group White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban New Entrants White Black Hispanic Mexican American Puerto Rican Cuban -0.2 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.6 -0.6 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.6 9.4 0.1 0.1 3.3 4.3 3.0 9.7 8.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.4 -1.7 1.1 -2.6 -8.4 -7.4 -8.6 -11.8 -2.2 -3.4 -10.1 -8.4 -9.4 -14.4 -3.0 1991-94 0.0 0.8 1.8 2.3 -1.2 2.0 2001-04 0.6 1.8 1.1 1.6 3.0 0.9 1991-94 0.1 1.0 3.0 3.2 0.8 5.6 Recovery Women 2001-04 0.8 1.6 1.8 2.6 0.9 0.7 1991-00 Expansion Men -1.6 -5.7 -5.2 -6.4 -7.8 -0.8 Women -2.1 -10.7 -7.9 -7.8 -16.1 -4.1

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the micro data March Annual Demographic Files of the Current Population Survey. The columns correspond to the 1982 to 1989 and 1991 to 2000 expansions, and the current and two previous recoveries: 1982 to 1985, 1991 to 1994, and 2001 to 2004. All respondents are men and women who are at least 16 years of age. New entrants have 0 to 10 years of potential experience. We use the current BLS terminology to identify individuals by race and ethnicity. Standard errors and results for South Americans and Other Spanish respondents are available upon request.

22

The Rate of Unionization Unionism has historically offered a route to economic advancement for disadvantaged groups, including immigrants. Hispanics who are union members earn significantly higher wages than nonunion Hispanics. Table 13 reports that the median nonunion weekly wage among Hispanics is $428, compared to the union median weekly wage of $679, generating a nonunionunion ratio of 63 percent. This ratio is 14 points less than the ratio among blacks and whites.7 The large wage advantage to Hispanic union members seems to be driven by the fact that unionized Mexican-American women earn 70 percent more than nonunion Mexican-American women.8
Table 13: Union Characteristics for 2001 and 2004 (Total Employed and Membership in Thousands)
Panel A: Weekly Wages Group White Black Hispanic Panel B: Union Membership Group White Black Hispanic Total Employed (in 1,000’s) 100,384 14,515 13,782 2001 Nonunion/ Union $790 $643 $617 Nonunion Union $630 $494 $425 2001 Members 13,125 2,465 1,559 80% 77% 69% $808 $656 $679 $626 $507 $428 2004 Unionization Total Employed Members Unionization % % Rate % Rate % (in 1,000’s) (in 1,000’s) 13.10% 17.00% 11.30% 101,340 14,090 16,533 12,381 2,130 1,676 12.20% 15.10% 10.10% Union Nonunion Union 77% 77% 63% 2004 Nonunion/

TABLE 13

Notes: Published BLS data on union membership.

However, Hispanics have the lowest union membership. Published BLS data reported in Table 13 indicates that only 1,676,000 Hispanics are union members, a 10.1 percent unionization rate.9 The rates for blacks and whites are 15.1 and 12.2 percent. Among Hispanic men, Puerto Ricans have the largest unionization rates, followed by Mexican Americans and then Cubans. Unionization rates range from a high of 19.8 percent for Puerto Ricans to a low of 2.9 percent for Cubans.10 This ranking is largely preserved among Hispanic women, but there is less variation in membership rates. Along with slower job growth, the decline in Hispanic full-year work, the stagnation in wages, and the erosion in health insurance and pension coverage can be linked to patterns of unionization. From 2001 to 2004, the Hispanic unionization rate fell from 11.3 to 10.1 percent. Although Hispanic membership increased from 1,559,000 to 1,676,000, the unionization rate’s

23

drop reflects faster growth in nonunion employment than union employment. During the same period, the ratio of nonunion to union wages fell from 69 to 63 percent. The decline in the relative earnings of nonunion Hispanics is due to an increase in the wages of Hispanic union members and stagnation in the wages of nonunion Hispanics. The Benefits of a Booming Economy In this section, we compare the economic outcomes for workers during the two most recent complete economic expansions, 1982-1989 and 1991-2000. Full-year work increased during both economic expansions, with the largest growth from 1982 to 1989 (table 10). New entrants experienced the biggest increases in full-year work. The larger gains during the 1980s expansion are due to the sharp rebound from the severe 1982-83 recession. Weekly wages for most groups increased more during the 1991 to 2000 boom, reflecting the extremely “tight” labor markets that emerged after the mid-1990s, which brought unemployment rates below 4 percent in many areas. The booms are associated with increases in health insurance coverage, especially for new entrants (table 12). As the labor market tightened from 1991 to 2000, the availability of pensions increased, due to growth in full-time and full-year work and the need for employers to use benefits to attract and retain workers. Finally, given the growth in economic security during the boom, food stamp usage declined. Again, the drops are largest among new entrants. To see how robust job growth affected Hispanics, we look at metropolitan areas with persistently low unemployment rates during the 1990s boom. We build on Freeman and Rodgers (2000), where we found that out of school 16-to-24-year-old black and white men experienced a noticeable boost in employment and earnings in these tight labor markets, while adult men in these areas had no such gains. The employment–population ratios and earnings of adults barely changed in metropolitan areas where unemployment rates remained below 4 percent in every year of the boom, while these labor market indicators for youth, including disadvantaged African-American youth, improved. Youth did particularly well in metropolitan areas that started the boom at lower jobless rates, suggesting they would benefit especially from consistent full employment. Appendix Table A displays different unemployment rate histories for three types of metropolitan area expansions: those with “ continuous full employment,” defined as areas with unemployment rates below 4 percent in all years (14 areas) of the recovery from 1992 to 2000; those with “steady high unemployment,” defined as areas that had unemployment rates that exceeded 7 percent in all years (24 areas); and those with “rapid reduction in joblessness,” defined as areas where unemployment rates fell by over 5 points (43 areas).

24

During the boom, the average unemployment rate in “continuous full employment” areas, which are concentrated in the South and Midwest, fell from 3.2 percent in 1992 to 2.0 percent in 2000. The jobless rate in “continuously high unemployment” areas also fell, but the group average remained in the double digits, falling from 15.9 to 11.3 percent. Of the 24 areas, eight are in California. Finally, the average for areas with “rapid reductions in unemployment” fell from 12.0 to 5.8 percent. Fifteen of the group’s areas are in New England. Table 14 reports the employment-population ratios and log hourly wages for Hispanic men and women with different skills in the three types of economic expansions. The gains in the “tightest” labor markets are largest for new entrants, especially Hispanic and black new entrants. But regardless of type of recovery, Hispanic men have higher employment-population ratios than black men, while Hispanic women tend to have lower ratios than black women. Table 14 indicates that increases in the employment-population ratios of Hispanic women appear to be strongest among older women in the areas that experienced rapid recoveries and had jobless rates in excess of 7 percent throughout the 1990s boom. The ratios of new entrant Hispanic women show no improvement during the expansion. Table 15 reports the outcomes across the three types of recoveries for full-year work, health insurance, and food stamp usage. Collectively, they show that economies with persistently low unemployment rates have higher full-year percentages, higher health insurance and pension coverage rates, and lower food stamp usage. The estimates also indicate that a strong jobs expansion goes well beyond simply raising employment and wages. Even as the labor markets with persistently high unemployment rates improved, full-year employment increased, health insurance and pension coverage increased, leading to a convergence with the “persistently” tight areas. Focusing on the experiences of Hispanics, we find that full-year work among Hispanic males is highest in areas with unemployment rates that are persistently below 4 percent. Fullyear work of Hispanic males in persistently weak and rapidly tightening labor markets saw substantial increases. Hispanic women’s full-year employment is lower than white and black women’s. The persistence of low jobless rates had little impact on their full-year work. Areas that were persistently weak and rapidly tightened saw Hispanic women’s full-year employment converge toward that of Hispanic women in the persistently tight labor markets. Even at the peak of the boom, their percentages rise no higher than 50 percent, while the share of white and black women working full-year are typically in excess of 60 percent. Hispanic private health insurance coverage is highly related to a local labor market’s job creation. We find some evidence that strong labor markets are associated with higher pension coverage, but not much sensitivity to changes in the business cycle over time. Areas 25

Table 14: Male Employment-Population Ratios and Log Hourly Wages by Type of 1990s Expansion
Jobless Rate <4% Black 69.4% 69.6% 0.2 Black 64.1% 72.6% 8.5 Jobless Rate <4% Black 1.63 1.82 0.194 Black 1.51 1.68 0.169 0.384 0.056 1.57 1.60 1.18 1.54 Hispanic White 0.194 -0.040 0.064 0.136 Black 1.40 1.49 0.096 1.82 1.65 1.87 1.72 1.63 1.81 1.58 Hispanic White Black Mexican American 1.69 1.59 1.64 0.049 Hispanic 1.44 1.54 0.105 Jobless Rate above 7% Hispanic 15.0 1.2 -0.2 1.3 75.0% 73.9% 50.3% 65.8% 60.0% 72.7% 50.5% 64.5% Hispanic White Black Hispanic -4.1 -3.3 0.4 2.0 3.4 3.8 3.3 White 73.5% 77.9% 4.4 79.2% 77.9% 69.7% 58.2% 72.4% 73.0% 72.7% 83.3% 69.3% 56.2% 68.9% 69.4% Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Mexican American 81.3% Mexican American 69.1% Jobless Rate above 7% Decline >5 Points Black 57.2% 61.4% 4.2 Black 49.4% 55.0% 5.6 Hispanic 66.6% 72.8% 6.2 Hispanic 63.1% 66.0% 2.9 Decline >5 Points White 1.99 1.62 0.058 1.99 -0.005 White 1.71 1.71 0.000 Black 1.90 1.83 -0.072 Black 1.54 1.65 0.111 Hispanic 1.65 1.73 0.079 Hispanic 1.53 1.59 0.063 Mexican American 1.56

Panel A: Employment-Population Ratio

All Men

Year

White

1992

78.2%

Mexican American 61.9% 74.6% 12.7

2000

78.0%

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

-0.2

New Entrants

Year

White

1992

81.5%

2000

81.2%

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

-0.4

Panel B: Log Hourly Wages

All Men

Year

White

1992

1.79

Mexican American 1.64 1.70 0.063

2000

1.88

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

0.099

New Entrants

Year

White

1992

1.58

2000

1.68

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

0.097

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the ORG CPS files. Unemployment rate <4%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Unemployment rate above 7%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Decline >5 Points: Sample respondents who resided in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000.

Table 14 cont.: Female Employment-Population Ratios and Log Hourly Wages by Type of 1990s Expansion
Jobless Rate <4% Black 61.5% 65.9% 4.4 Black 62.5% 75.4% 12.9 Jobless Rate <4% Black 1.57 1.75 0.175 Black 1.45 1.67 0.217 -0.170 1.50 1.45 0.045 1.67 1.40 Hispanic White 0.175 -0.055 0.084 0.103 Black 1.34 1.39 0.055 1.75 1.57 1.63 1.53 1.57 1.55 1.43 Hispanic White Black Mexican American 1.62 1.43 1.49 0.057 Hispanic 1.36 1.41 0.051 Jobless Rate Above 7% Hispanic 1.1 2.4 5.5 -0.6 64.7% 66.9% 52.4% 48.3% 63.6% 64.6% 46.8% 48.9% Hispanic White Black Hispanic -2.3 -4.3 3.7 4.5 4.5 4.2 3.1 White 69.2% 69.4% 0.3 59.3% 58.8% 57.2% 52.5% 50.0% 48.8% 57.6% 61.5% 53.5% 48.0% 45.5% 54.5% Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black 45.1% 58.5% 13.3 Black 40.8% 62.2% 21.4 Mexican American 63.2% Mexican American 44.6% Jobless Rate above 7% Decline >5 Points Hispanic 45.4% 51.9% 6.5 Hispanic 52.8% 54.0% 1.2 Decline >5 Points White 1.77 1.47 0.062 1.79 0.029 White 1.60 1.60 0.002 Black 1.67 1.73 0.054 Black 1.48 1.59 0.109 Hispanic 1.50 1.59 0.093 Hispanic 1.47 1.53 0.059 Mexican American 1.41

Panel A: Employment-Population Ratio

All Women

Year

White

1992

64.8%

Mexican American 44.6% 51.1% 6.5

2000

68.2%

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

3.4

New Entrants

Year

White

1992

78.9%

2000

80.9%

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

1.9

Panel B: Log Hourly Wages

All Women

Year

White

1992

1.63

Mexican American 1.48 1.57 0.092

2000

1.71

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

0.082

New Entrants

Year

White

1992

1.50

2000

1.55

2000-1992 (% Pt. Chg)

0.052

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the ORG CPS files. Unemployment rate <4%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Unemployment rate above 7%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Decline >5 Points: Sample respondents who resided in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000.

Table 15: Measures of Economic Security by Type of 1990s Metropolitan Expansion Panel A: Full-Year Work
Men All White 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Black 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Hispanic 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Mexican American 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) 70% 68% -2 63% 68% 5 61% 69% 8 63% 70% 8 58 64% 5 59% 66% 7 46% 45% -1 40% 46% 6 36% 47% 11 30% 41% 11 40% 43% 3 36% 50% 14 71% 72% 1 65% 68% 3 67% 69% 3 73% 72% -1 61% 64% 3 62% 66% 3 50% 52% 2 42% 47% 5 45% 51% 6 36% 46% 10 42% 44% 2 45% 52% 8 77% 78% 2 59% 57% -2 54% 62% 8 80% 80% 0 54% 55% 0 50% 53% 3 55% 69% 14 47% 53% 6 40% 61% 21 53% 71% 18 45% 53% 9 36% 60% 24 <4% 81% 82% 1 >7% 72% 76% 3 Decline >5 Points 72% 76% 4 <20 years of Experience <4% 81% 79% -2 >7% 71% 73% 2 Decline >5 Points 71% 74% 3 <4% 72% 70% -3 All >7% 57% 62% 5 Decline >5 Points 60% 65% 5 Women <20 years of Experience <4% 74% 67% -7 >7% 57% 60% 3 Decline >5 Points 59% 63% 4

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the March Annual Demographic CPS files. Unemployment rate <4%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Unemployment rate >7%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Decline >5 Points: Sample respondents who resided in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Table 15 cont.: Measures of Economic Security by Type of 1990s Expansion Panel B: Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage
Men All White 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Black 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Hispanic 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Mexican American 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) 70% 52% -18 45% 49% 4 39% 51% 11 63% 50% -13 44% 44% 0 43% 50% 8 69% 52% -18 40% 47% 7 40% 51% 11 60% 41% -19 41% 45% 4 46% 52% 6 71% 54% -18 47% 50% 3 50% 52% 2 73% 51% -21 45% 45% 0 50% 50% 1 75% 52% -23 43% 49% 6 49% 52% 3 64% 39% -24 45% 47% 2 48% 54% 5 67% 73% 6 51% 60% 9 49% 63% 13 70% 77% 8 43% 57% 13 46% 59% 13 63% 77% 13 47% 55% 8 43% 63% 20 61% 79% 18 45% 52% 7 38% 62% 25 <4% 82% 85% 2 >7% 74% 78% 3 Decline >5 Points 79% 84% 5 <20 years of Experience Decline <4% >7% >5 Points 82% 71% 76% 83% 1 75% 4 83% 6 All <4% 82% 87% 4 >7% 73% 77% 4 Women Decline >5 Points 76% 84% 8 <4% 89% 8 <20 years of Experience Decline >7% >5 Points 81% 70% 73% 74% 4 83% 10

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the March Annual Demographic CPS files. Unemployment rate <4%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Unemployment rate >7%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Decline >5 Points: Sample respondents who resided in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Table 15 cont.: Measures of Economic Security by Type of 1990s Expansion Panel C: Food Stamp Usage
Men All White 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Black 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Hispanic 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) Mexican American 1991 2000 2000-1991 (% Pt. Chg) 0% 2% 2 19% 11% -8 21% 9% -12 0% 3% 3 22% 12% -10 20% 9% -11 0% 6% 6 23% 15% -8 27% 11% -16 0% 9% 9 24% 17% -7 25% 12% -13 0% 1% 1 17% 11% -6 14% 10% -5 0% 3% 3 20% 12% -8 15% 10% -5 0% 9% 9 21% 15% -6 22% 13% -9 0% 14% 14 22% 17% -5 22% 13% -10 16% 18% 3 21% 11% -9 18% 11% -7 17% 17% 0 23% 13% -11 23% 14% -9 23% 13% -10 29% 22% -7 36% 14% -23 25% 10% -16 31% 23% -8 41% 15% -26 <4% 3% 1% -1 >7% 6% 4% -2 Decline >5 Points 3% 2% -1 <20 years of Experience Decline <4% >7% >5 Points 3% 7% 3% 2% -1 4% -3 2% -2 All <4% 5% 3% -2 >7% 8% 6% -2 Women Decline >5 Points 6% 3% -3 <20 years of Experience Decline <4% >7% >5 Points 5% 10% 7% 4% -1 8% -2 3% -4

Notes: Authors’ calculations from the March Annual Demographic CPS files. Unemployment rate <4%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Unemployment rate >7%: Sample of respondents who reside in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate was below 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000. Decline > 5 Points: Sample respondents who resided in metropolitan areas in which the unemployment rate fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

with persistently low unemployment rates started with Hispanic health insurance coverage rates in 1991 that were in excess of 60 percent. During the boom coverage fell dramatically. This presumably reflects industrial and occupational shifts toward types of jobs that do not offer benefits. Hispanic coverage in labor markets that tightened rapidly and remained relatively weak saw small increases in private sector health insurance coverage. Yet, even with these gains, Hispanics typically have health insurance coverage rates that are below those of whites and blacks. This result is independent of the type of recovery. The pension figures show that Hispanics in persistently tight labor markets have higher coverage rates, but coverage does not appear to be sensitive to changes over time in the business cycle. (The detailed pension statistics are available upon request.) Finally, Table 15 illustrates the strong sensitivity of food stamp usage to the tightness of a labor market. Hispanic usage of food stamps in areas with unemployment rates that were below 4 percent for the full 1990s boom is close to zero. By contrast, a non-negligible proportion of blacks use food stamps in these extremely tight labor markets. Hispanic usage and the usage of whites and blacks significantly falls in the persistently weak economies and those that rapidly tightened.

29

Summary and Conclusions The slow pace of job growth has had an adverse impact on the employment outcomes of Hispanics. Our evidence shows that the early findings of the adverse effect of recession and weak recovery on Hispanic economic well-being reported in a series of Pew Hispanic Center studies (Gonzalez, 2002; Suro and Lowell, 2002; Kochhar, 2003) remain even as the recovery has proceeded into its fourth year. The slower pace of job growth poses a challenge to economic and social policy. As long as the U.S. makes full employment its main “welfare state” protection for workers, the country has to attain something akin to the late 1990s tightness in the labor market for economic growth to be shared among the entire population. Nothing short of that high rate of employment and low level of unemployment seems powerful enough to improve the employment and earnings opportunities facing vulnerable groups. Given the extremely low wages, health insurance and pension coverage among much of the Hispanic population, even a return to the 1990s tightness may not be enough to significantly improve their prospects for greater economic security.

30

REFERENCES Card, David. “Is the New Immigration Really so Bad?” NBER Working Paper 11547. Cambridge, MA, August 2005. Freeman, Richard B.; Rodgers, William M, III. “Area Economic Conditions and the Labor-Market Outcomes of Young Men in the 1990s Expansion,” in Robert Cherry and William M. Rodgers III (eds.), Prosperity for all? The economic boom and African Americans, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 50-87. 2000. Freeman, Richard B.; Rodgers, William M, III. “The Fragility of the 1990s Economic Gains,” Center for American Progress, July 2005. Freeman, Richard B.; Rodgers, William M, III. “Jobless Recovery: Whatever Happened to the Great American Jobs Machine?” Centre Piece Magazine 9:3, Autumn 2004, London, 22-27; New York Federal Reserve, Economic Policy Review, August 2005. Gonzalez, Arturo. “The Impact of the 2001/2002 Economic Recession on Hispanic Workers: A Cross Sectional Comparison of Three Generation.” Pew Hispanic Center, January 2002. Holzer, Harry J. and Paul Offner. “Left Behind in the Labor Market: Recent Employment Trends Among Young Black Men.” Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 2001. Jaeger, David A. “Estimating the Returns to Education Using the Newest Current Population Survey Education Questions.” Economics Letters Vol. 78 (3), pp. 385-94. March 2003. Kochhar, Rakesh. “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: The Latino Experience in the Recession and Recovery.” Pew Hispanic Center, October 2003. Suro, Roberto and B. Lindsay Lowell. “New Lows from New Highs: Latino Economic Losses in the Current Recession.” Pew Hispanic Center, January 2002. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Various Editions. Employment and Earnings. Washington, DC: USGPO.

31

Data Appendix This study uses several data sets. The first are the published monthly employment figures from the establishment-level Current Employment Statistics (CES). The monthly time series used in the analysis spans from February 1961 to September 2005, covering five boom, bust, and recovery episodes.11 We use the NBER Dating Committee’s designations to identify the episodes. We use the micro data from the annual Merged Outgoing Rotation Group Files of the Current Population Survey (1979 to 2004). We use the data files produced by Unicon Research Corporation. These files allow us to describe the experiences of specific demographic groups (e.g., new entrant Mexican Americans). However, this gain in heterogeneity comes with costs. Due to the file’s start in 1979, we can only document the recovery of the 1974 to 1984 episode. Further, the annual nature of the data means that we can only approximate the recovery and boom episodes, which are 1982 to 1985, 1982 to 1989; 1991 to 1994, 1991 to 2000; and 2001 to 2004. Our samples are comprised of all non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic men and women who are at least 16 years of age, new entrants (0 to 10 years or 0 to 20 years of potential experience), and non-enrolled 16-to-24-year-olds. When our samples allow us, we present detailed evidence for Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and South Americans. These are the Bureau of Labor Statistics Hispanic categories. Our non-enrolled youth sample is based on individuals who respond “no” to being enrolled in school (School enrollment question). The employment-population ratio is the ratio of the number of employed to the sum of the number looking for work, the number working, the number with a job but not working, and all those who are out of the labor force. The ratio is constructed from the MLR (Monthly Labor Force Recode) variable in the Unicon Research Corporation CPS Utilities files.12 In these files, the variable has been made consistent across time to reflect changes in the question. We use the MLR variable to construct the employment-population ratio. This is the share of the civilian population that is employed. In a period of weak job growth, it has the benefit of both capturing the longer time it takes to find a job (unemployment) and decisions to leave the labor force (labor force participation). The natural logarithm of real hourly earnings is constructed from the respondent’s pay status. If the respondent reported that they are paid on an hourly basis, we took the logarithm of their hourly wage. If the respondent reported that they are paid on a weekly basis, we took the logarithm of the ratio of their usual weekly earnings and usual hours worked per week. We deflated nominal hourly wages using the CPI-UX-1 deflator. It is important to note that these two labor market outcomes correspond to the respondent’s labor market activity during the last week and hourly wages at their current job. The difference between the average log real hourly earnings of two groups can be interpreted as the percent difference. 32

A third data source is the annual demographic files from the March Current Population Survey (1963 to 2005), also available from Unicon Research Corporation. We use these data to describe patterns in full-year work, weekly wages, private health insurance coverage, pension coverage and food stamp usage. For example, the 2005 file contains information on annual wages and salary and weeks worked for calendar year 2004. The weekly wage is the ratio of annual wages and salary to weeks worked during the calendar year. To describe annual labor force attachment, we construct the percent of respondents that worked a full-year (at least 39 weeks). The files start in 1963 and with the combination of available information to construct detailed Hispanic measures, we are able to roughly describe two boom and three recovery episodes: 1982 to 1989, 1982 to 1985; 1991 to 2000, 1991 to 1994, 2001 to 2004. We choose the recovery lengths to match the current length of the recovery and availability of data. The final data are local area unemployment rates, derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment and Earnings and Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment. In our years of analysis, metropolitan corresponds to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), primary metropolitan statistical areas, and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. From 1992 through 2005, 334 areas are identifiable.

33

Appendix A: The Top Metropolitan Areas During the 1990s Expansion (Unemployment has remained less than 4% in every year from 1992 to 2000)

Selected Years
MSA 1992 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000-1992

Change
2001-2000 2004-2001

Bryan, TX Columbia, MO Des Moines, IA Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN Fayetteville-SpringdaleRogers, AR Iowa City, IA Lafayette, IN Lincoln, NE Madison, WI Omaha, NE-IA Raliegh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Rapid City, SD Rochester, MN Sioux Falls, SD Average

2.92% 2.43% 3.68% 3.58% 3.63% 3.26% 3.85% 2.72% 2.2% 3.56% 3.79% 3.22% 2.98% 2.38% 3.16%

1.52% 1.22% 1.95% 2.01% 2.11% 2.07% 2.33% 2.58% 1.68% 2.81% 1.77% 2.05% 2.65% 1.52% 2.02%

1.64% 1.78% 2.55% 1.92% 2.25% 2.41% 3.21% 2.79% 2.02% 3.18% 3.27% 3.11% 2.48% 2.31% 2.49%

1.85% 2.22% 3.41% 2.54% 2.44% 3.01% 3.81% 3.27% 2.72% 3.82% 5.12% 2.91% 3.61% 2.4% 3.08%

2.29% 2.28% 3.89% 2.78% 3.00% 3.18% 4.22% 4.01% 2.85% 4.45% 4.68% 3.32% 4.22% 2.90% 3.43%

1.94% 2.31% 3.64% 2.38% 2.76% 3.62% 4.29% 3.66% 2.62% 4.35% 3.55% 3.15% 3.78% 2.94% 3.21%

-1.4% -1.21% -1.73% -1.57% -1.52% -1.19% -1.52% -0.14% -0.52% -0.75% -2.02% -1.17% -0.33% -0.86% -1.14%

0.12% 0.56% 0.60% -0.09% 0.14% 0.34% 0.88% 0.21% 0.34% 0.37% 1.50% 1.06% -0.17% 0.79% 0.48%

0.30% 0.53% 1.09% 0.46% 0.51% 1.21% 1.08% 0.87% 0.60% 1.17% 0.28% 0.04% 1.30% 0.63% 0.72%

Notes: Authors’ calculations from Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Appendix A cont.: The Weakest Metropolitan Areas During the 1990s Expansion (Unemployment has remained above 7% in every year from 1992 to 2000)
MSA Aguadilla, PR Arecibo, PR Bakersfield, CA Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX Caguas, PR Cumberland, MD-WV El Paso, TX Fresno, CA Las Cruces, NM Mayaguez, PR McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Merced, CA Modesto, CA Pine Bluff, AR Ponce, PR Salinas, CA San Juan-Bayamon, PR Stockton-Lodi, CA Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA Yakima, WA Yuba City, CA Yuma, AZ Average 1992 22.0% 19.9% 15.7% 9.3% 14.7% 16.4% 12.4% 11.7% 15.7% 7.8% 18.1% 22.3% 17.3% 16.4% 11.4% 21.0% 12.4% 13.9% 14.1% 12.2% 17.4% 13.7% 18.7% 26.5% 15.9% 2000 15.5% 11.9% 11.3% 7.9% 8.7% 9.4% 7.5% 8.2% 14.1% 7.1% 12.4% 13.6% 14.5% 10.5% 7.0% 13.4% 9.6% 8.0% 8.9% 7.1% 15.5% 10.5% 12.6% 27.2% 11.4% Selected Years 2001 2002 17.5% 13.5% 10.7% 8.2% 9.2% 10.5% 7.3% 8.2% 13.7% 6.9% 15.0% 13.1% 14.2% 10.4% 8.1% 15.0% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 7.4% 15.6% 11.5% 12.3% 23.9% 11.6% 17.3% 15.7% 11.8% 8.4% 10.1% 11.5% 6.5% 8.7% 14.2% 6.8% 15.0% 13.2% 14.5% 11.5% 8.8% 15.4% 10.5% 9.6% 10.0% 8.5% 15.5% 10.4% 13.4% 23.1% 12.1% 2003 15.8% 14.9% 12.3% 9.5% 11.0% 11.3% 6.7% 9.7% 14.1% 7.5% 14.3% 13.6% 14.8% 11.5% 9.5% 15.4% 10.5% 9.7% 10.1% 8.7% 15.5% 10.6% 13.8% 23.2% 12.2% 2004 14.1% 12.4% 12.2% 8.9% 9.8% 10.4% 7.1% 7.8% 12.8% 6.8% 12.5% 11.8% 14.3% 11.2% 8.9% 13.4% 9.6% 8.8% 9.9% 7.6% 14.9% 9.2% 13.7% 23.5% 11.3% Changes 2000-1992 2001-2000 2004-2001 -6.50% -8.00% -4.40% -1.40% -6.00% -7.00% -4.90% -3.50% -1.60% -0.70% -5.70% -8.70% -2.80% -5.90% -4.40% -7.60% -2.80% -5.90% -5.20% -5.10% -1.90% -3.20% -6.10% 0.70% -4.53% 2.00% 1.60% -0.60% 0.30% 0.50% 1.10% -0.20% 0.00% -0.40% -0.20% 2.60% -0.50% -0.30% -0.10% 1.10% 1.60% -0.10% 1.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10% 1.00% -0.30% -3.30% 0.30% -3.40% -1.10% 1.50% 0.70% 0.60% -0.10% -0.20% -0.40% -0.90% -0.10% -2.50% -1.30% 0.10% 0.80% 0.80% -1.60% 0.10% -0.20% 1.00% 0.20% -0.70% -2.30% 1.40% -0.40% -0.33%

Notes: Authors’ calculations from Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

Appendix A cont.: The Metropolitan Areas with the Greatest Improvement During the 1990s Expansion (Unemployment fell by at least 5 percentage points from 1992 to 2000)
Selected Years MSA Aguadilla, PR Arecibo, PR Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA Benton Harbor, MI Boston, MA-NH Bridgeport, CT Brockton, MA Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX Caguas, PR Detriot, MI Fitchburg-Leominster, MA Flint, MI Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL Hagerstown, MD Hartford, CT Jackson, MI Jersey City, NJ Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Lawrence, MA-NH Lewiston-Auburn, ME Lowell, MA-NH Manchester, NH Mayaguez, PR McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX Miami, FL Modesto, CA Naples, FL New Bedford, MA New Haven-Meriden, CT Pittsfield, MA Ponce, PR Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI Redding, CA Riverside-San Bernardino, CA San Juan-Bayamon, PR Springfield, MA Steubenville, Weirton, OH-WV Stockton-Lodi, CA Vineland-Tulare-Porterville, CA Waterbury, CT West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL Worcester, MA-CT Yuba City, CA Average 1992 22.0% 19.9% 10.0% 8.8% 7.6% 9.1% 11.0% 14.7% 16.4% 9.2% 9.2% 12.0% 13.9% 9.3% 7.9% 9.6% 11.2% 10.9% 9.7% 8.7% 10.1% 7.6% 18.1% 22.4% 10.5% 16.4% 9.5% 12.7% 7.4% 11.0% 21.0% 9.7% 13.1% 10.6% 13.9% 8.5% 10.1% 14.1% 12.2% 9.6% 10.3% 8.8% 18.7% 12.0% 2000 15.5% 11.9% 3.3% 3.8% 2.2% 2.8% 3.0% 8.7% 9.4% 3.2% 3.5% 5.4% 6.4% 3.1% 2.4% 3.1% 5.6% 4.8% 3.8% 3.2% 2.6% 2.4% 12.4% 13.6% 5.3% 10.5% 3.5% 5.1% 2.3% 3.5% 13.4% 4.1% 6.9% 5.1% 8.0% 3.1% 4.6% 8.9% 7.1% 2.8% 4.4% 2.8% 12.6% 5.8% 2001 17.5% 13.5% 3.6% 5.7% 3.2% 4.1% 3.9% 9.2% 10.5% 5.1% 5.0% 7.5% 7.1% 4.1% 3.3% 5.3% 6.2% 6.1% 5.5% 3.9% 4.1% 3.3% 15.0% 13.1% 6.9% 10.4% 3.9% 6.0% 3.2% 4.1% 15.0% 4.8% 6.8% 5.0% 9.0% 3.8% 5.0% 8.9% 7.4% 4.6% 5.5% 3.9% 12.3% 6.8% 2002 17.3% 15.7% 4.3% 6.2% 4.8% 5.3% 5.4% 10.1% 11.6% 6.2% 7.3% 8.6% 7.0% 4.5% 4.5% 6.5% 8.2% 6.1% 8.1% 4.1% 6.5% 4.5% 15.0% 13.2% 7.8% 11.5% 4.4% 7.4% 4.1% 5.1% 15.4% 5.4% 7.5% 5.9% 9.6% 5.2% 5.9% 10.0% 8.5% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 13.4% 7.8% 2003 15.8% 14.9% 4.8% 7.3% 5.2% 6.7% 6.1% 11.0% 11.3% 7.3% 7.9% 9.7% 6.6% 4.6% 5.9% 8.0% 8.0% 6.0% 8.2% 4.7% 6.8% 4.3% 14.3% 13.6% 7.2% 11.5% 4.5% 8.2% 5.4% 5.6% 15.4% 5.7% 7.8% 5.9% 9.7% 6.0% 6.6% 10.1% 8.7% 7.3% 5.6% 6.4% 13.8% 8.1% 2004 14.1% 12.4% 4.6% 6.8% 4.6% 5.7% 5.9% 9.8% 10.4% 7.0% 7.5% 8.9% 6.7% 3.9% 5.2% 6.8% 6.7% 5.6% 7.5% 4.0% 5.8% 3.9% 12.5% 11.8% 6.4% 11.2% 3.9% 7.6% 4.8% 5.2% 13.4% 5.8% 8.1% 5.7% 8.8% 5.7% 9.1% 9.9% 7.6% 6.3% 5.3% 5.8% 13.7% 7.5% -6.49% -8.04% -6.72% -5.01% -5.35% -6.31% -7.98% -6.00% -7.00% -6.01% -5.73% -6.58% -7.53% -6.13% -5.53% -6.50% -5.58% -6.10% -5.95% -5.48% -7.52% -5.16% -5.71% -8.76% -5.20% -5.96% -5.99% -7.61% -5.07% -7.55% -7.57% -5.64% -6.13% -5.49% -5.97% -5.44% -5.53% -5.23% -5.05% -6.74% -5.93% -6.05% -6.10% -6.22% Changes 2000-1992 2001-2000 2004-2001 1.93% 1.67% 0.38% 1.96% 1.00% 1.35% 0.97% 0.50% 1.10% 1.87% 1.44% 2.06% 0.73% 0.96% 0.97% 2.20% 0.54% 1.36% 1.73% 0.73% 1.53% 0.88% 2.64% -0.53% 1.57% -0.12% 0.41% 0.89% 0.89% 0.59% 1.58% 0.74% -0.14% -0.11% 1.01% 0.73% 0.41% -0.03% 0.30% 1.73% 1.06% 1.15% -0.35% 0.98% -3.39% -1.12% 0.97% 1.09% 1.32% 1.62% 1.91% 0.58% -0.11% 1.97% 2.52% 1.43% -0.48% -0.14% 1.89% 1.52% 0.48% -0.50% 2.01% 0.09% 1.68% 0.56% -2.56% -1.22% -0.47% 0.89% -0.07% 1.64% 1.57% 1.18% -1.58% 0.97% 1.33% 0.68% -0.19% 1.88% 4.13% 1.04% 0.20% 1.71% -0.18% 1.86% 1.49% 0.70%

Notes: Authors’ calculations from Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov. All figures in percent, except where noted otherwise.

35

Endnotes
1

We calculated simple correlations between each group’s population distribution and the 2001 to 2005 employment These states are CA, TX, NY, IL, FL, AZ, GA, NJ, NC, CO, WA, VA, NV, OR and MA. Standard errors for estimated changes over time are available upon request. The changes in employment-population ratios have been adjusted for education, potential experience and census Potential experience is defined as Age – years of schooling – 5. In years where educational attainment is measured Legal immigrants were ineligible for the program from 1996 - 2003. As of April 2003, legal immigrants living

growth. The Hispanic correlation is 0.018. The black correlation is –0.21. The white correlation is -0.19.
2
3

4

division of residence.
5

by degree, years of schooling is approximated by using Jaeger’s (2003) imputation approach.
6

here at least 5 years may be eligible. Our figures do not adjust for these changes, but Table 8 showed that when we excluded immigrants, we found that usage among all groups, including Hispanics increased from 2001 to 2004.
7

The median weekly wages for white union and nonunion members are $808 and $626. The median weekly wages Detailed ethnic tabulations come from the authors and are available upon request. 12,381,000 and 2,130,000 whites and blacks were members of unions in 2004. Detailed ethnic tabulations come from the authors and are available upon request. The period of expansion, recession, and recovery that is the length of current recovery are as follows: 3/1991 to

for black union and nonunion members are $656 and $507.
8

9
10

11

3/2001, 3/01 to 11/01, and 11/01 to 11/2004; 11/82 to 7/90, 7/90 to 3/91, and 3/91 to 3/1994; 3/75 to 1/80, 1/80 to 7/80, and 7/80 to 7/1984; 11/70 to 11/73, 11/73 to 3/75, and 3/75 to 3/1978; and 2/61 to 12/69, 12/69 to 11/70. The 36th month after 11/70 is in the midst of the 11/73 to 3/75 recession.
12

The original location, length, and name are as follows: 1994 to 2003 (180, 2, PEMLR), 1989 to 1993 (348, 1, A-

LFSR) and 1979 to 1988 (109, 1, ESR).

36

About the Authors

William M. Rodgers III, Ph.D.
Professor Rodgers’ research examines issues in labor economics and the economics of social problems. Currently, he is identifying the causes of the current recovery’s historically weak job creation and its consequences for the earnings and employment of Americans. At the state level, Rodgers is conducting a comprehensive study of the status of New Jersey’s minorities for the State Employment Training Administration. He served as a member of the Acting Governor’s Benefits Review Task Force from May 2005 to December 2005. He has an appointment as a senior research affiliate at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He is currently directs the American Economic Association’s Pipeline Project and recently served as Chair of the Association’s Committee on the Status of Minorities in the Economics Profession. He holds memberships on the Center for American Progress’ Academic Advisory Board, the National Urban League Institute for Opportunity and Equality Advisory Board, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Council of Academic Advisors, the Economic Policy Institute’s Research Advisory Board, and the board of the University of Kentucky’s Center for Poverty Research. Locally, Rodgers serves on the Board of Directors for the Somerset County United Way. Professor Rodgers served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor from 2000 to 2001. Additionally, he was the Frances L. and Edwin L. Professor Cummings of Economics at the College of William and Mary. His articles have appeared in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Monthly Labor Review, the New York Federal Reserve’s Economic Policy Review, the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Family Economics and Nutrition Review, and the Review of Black Political Economy. In 2000, he co-edited Prosperity for All (Russell Sage Foundation). In 2005, he articles scheduled for publication by the Center for American Progress, the Southern Economic Journal. Rodgers has a forthcoming edited volume, The Handbook on the Economics of Discrimination (Edgar Elgar). He has extensive media experience. Rodgers’ expertise is frequently called upon by journalists for articles in The New York Times, U.S.A. Today, Business Week, and other publications. He has been a guest on CNBC and CNNfn and many radio talk shows.

38

Richard B. Freeman
Richard B. Freeman holds the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University. He is currently serving as faculty co-chair of the Harvard University Trade Union Program. He is also director of the Labor Studies Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, senior research fellow in labour markets at the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance, and visiting professor at the London School of Economics. Freeman is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of Sigma Xi. He has served on five panels of the National Academy of Sciences, including the Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists. He has published over 300 articles dealing with a wide range of research interests including the job market for scientists and engineers; the growth and decline of unions; the effects of immigration and trade on inequality; restructuring European welfare states; Chinese labor markets; transitional economies; youth labor market problems; crime; self-organizing non-unions in the labor market; employee involvement programs; and income distribution and equity in the marketplace. He is currently directing the NBER / Sloan Science Engineering Workforce Project (with Daniel Goroff), and an LSE research program on the effects of the internet on labor markets, social behavior and the economy. In 2003 he delivered the University of Nottingham, World Economy Annual Lecture (2003) and was the Okun Lecturer, Yale University. In September of 2001 he delivered the first JP Morgan Fellow Lecture on “The Impact of the Internet on the Economy: Revolutionary Force or Overblown Hype?” at the Hans Arnhold Center, Germany. In addition, he has written or edited over 25 books, several of which have been translated into French, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese. Some of his books include: Seeking a Premiere League Economy (forthcoming, 2004), Emerging Labor Market Institutions for the 21st Century (forthcoming 2004), Can Labor Standards Improve Under Globalization? with Kimberly Ann Elliott (2003), Inequality Around the World - IEA Conference Volume #134 (2002),Youth Employment and Joblessness in Advanced Countries (2000), What Workers Want? (1999), The New Inequality: Creating Solutions for Poor America (New Democracy Forum Series) (1999), Generating Jobs: How to Increase Demand for Less-Skilled Workers (1998), The Welfare State in Transition: Reforming the Swedish Model (1997), Differences and Changes in Wage Structures (1995), Working Under Different Rules (1994), Small Differences that Matter: Labor Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States (1993), Immigration and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and Source Areas (1992), Immigration, Trade and the Labor Market (1991), Labor Markets in Action: Essays in Empirical Economics (1989), Public Sector Unionism in the U.S. (1987), The Black Youth Employment Crisis (1986), What Do Unions Do? (1984), The Youth Joblessness Problem (1981), Labor Economics (1979), and The Overeducated American (1976).

39

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values. We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Center for American Progress 1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.682.1611 • Fax: 202.682.1867 www.americanprogress.org


								
To top