(Correction made on 8/28/11 see Notes:)
In 2006, the number of underemployed, native-born, college educated Americans (5.059 million) was roughly the same as the total number of foreign-born college-educated immigrants employed in the workforce (5.099 million). In this case, underemployed is defined as working as babysitters, telemarketers, dishwashers, cab drivers, and in other unskilled jobs.
A study created by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in 2008, draws attention to the underemployed, foreign-born, college degreed persons employed in the United States. I could not find any reference in the text about the plight of underemployed, native-born college graduates, but the data tables in the study allowed me to extract some numbers for this article.
MPI focused this study on comparing the percentages of native-born (17.7%) and foreign-born (22.0%) working in unskilled occupations, stressing the need to avoid a condition of “brain waste” of the foreign-born -- without equal concern for the native-born. Displaying the percentage of underemployed in each group seems a bit dishonest without displaying the total underemployed of each educated group -- here are those figures:
Underemployed Level and percentage of each respective labor force:
Underemployed native-born = 5,099,094 (17.7% of employed)
Underemployed foreign-born = 1,121,263 (20.0% of employed)
MPI was kind enough to provide unemployment estimates of the native-born graduates 893,134 (2.6%) and the foreign-born graduates 223,031 (3.7%). For the purpose of this article let’s add these underemployed and unemployed figures and call it an Underutilization Level
Underutilization Level and percentage of each respective labor force:
Underutilization Level: native-born college graduates = 5,952,275 (20.2%)
Underutilization Level: foreign-born college graduates = 1,344,294 (25.3%)
Over the years that I’ve been researching the H-1B visa debate, I’ve had to read more economic papers than anybody should have to. The near identical number of underemployed native-born and the number of employed foreign-born graduates bring a couple of economic terms to mind. The first term is “Economic equilibrium” and the second is “Shocking the economy with immigration.”
The MPI data suggests that the High-skill employment sector has been shocked with immigration and that the U.S. and Global economies are not in a state of equilibrium. Most of the "pro" High-skill (H-1B) immigration articles I read now have a protectionist slant; we need to employ “them” so they won’t compete against us. The MPI study also mentions this pirating of foreign educational resources, claiming benefit to America because 54.3% of immigrants are educated elsewhere, at no expense to the United States.
It is completely naive to suggest there is no expense to the United States concerning High-skill immigration, these immigrants have displaced, or eliminated opportunities for, native-born individuals whom are most likely to be mortgage holders and student-loan obligees. Additionally, the suggestion that the housing market can be improved by increasing High-skill immigration in an economy where employment growth is negative in relation to increases in the workforce is absurd. Many U.S. employers seem to prefer temporary non-immigrants because they are mobile and do not have a salary-requirement that include a mortgage and student loan. Moreover, travel Per-Diem and moving expenses are trivial for employees with no ties to a specific community.
A second focal point of the MPI report observes that with the exception of Europe, foreign-born graduates of foreign colleges do not fare as well as the foreign-born graduates of U.S. colleges. A case in point is that Asian born immigrants represented 50% of the employed foreign-born (2,555,014); moreover, Asian immigrants generally represent about 50% of H-1B visas granted yearly.
The MPI study disaggregates employed immigrants in the following categories.
Foreign educated by place of birth: Recent arrivals (less than 10 years)
Foreign educated by place of birth: Long term (more than 10 years)
U.S. educated by place of birth
An observation of the Asian immigrant population suggests that as years go by, employers become disenchanted with the Bachelors degreed, Asian-born whom were educated abroad. MPI suggests that Asian colleges have improved in recent years and the movement of these graduates toward lower skill positions is not a trend. However, the MPI supposition does not take into account aging technical specialties, or consider that some immigrants leave the United States because they have found themselves working in unskilled occupation.
Bachelors Degree, Born in Asia
Foreign Educated: Recent Arrivals: (370,424)
Percent employed in high skilled 43.2%
Percent employed in skilled technical 26,7%
Percent employed in unskilled 30.1%
Foreign Educated: Long Term: (365,916)
Percent employed in high skilled 32.6%
Percent employed in skilled technical 32.8%
Percent employed in unskilled 34.6%
U.S. Educated, Born in Asia (685,970)
Percent employed in high skilled 53.5%
Percent employed in skilled technical 23.4%
Percent employed in unskilled 21.0%
The table above indicates that foreign-educated Asian immigrants are more likely to experience underemployment as they leave temporary immigrant status for permanent residency.
The policy implications of "shocking" High-skill occupations with immigration is not without risk, many Science and Technology degrees become obsolete within a decade. Loose High-skill immigration policy, which allows a foreign-born underutilization rate of 26.4%, removes the employer’s motivation to invest in the technical expertise of their human-capital (employees).
The U.S. is granting permanent residence for Science and Technology skills that are temporary. It is rather obvious that the minimum educational requirement for business-immigration to the United States needs to be raised to the postgraduate level.
Source:
UNEVEN PROGRESS
The Employment Pathways of Skilled Immigrants in the United States
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/BrainWasteOct08.pdf
Notes: Underutilization Levels were incorrectly divided by the number of employed. Corrected levels are the divided by the number of employed plus the number of unemployed.
Corrected:
Underutilization Level and percentage of each respective labor force:
Underutilization Level: native-born college graduates = 5,952,275 (20.2%)
Underutilization Level: foreign-born college graduates = 1,344,294 (25.3%)
Incorrect:
Underutilization Level and percentage of each respective labor force:
Underutilization Level: native-born college graduates = 5,952,275 (20.8%)
Underutilization Level: foreign-born college graduates = 1,344,294 (26.4%)
No comments:
Post a Comment