Economic Immigration AKA The Prisoner's Dilemma

Dr. Norm Matloff featured on, “Economy In Crisis”

2012-02-01T20:55:00.001-08:00

Outsourcing and H-1B visa are destroying the US Software Engineering profession.

Norman Matloff's Frequently-Accessed Writings

Economy In Crises Youtube Channel

http://economyincrisis.org/

Average H-1B Salary 2009

2012-02-01T15:58:00.001-08:00

Just a couple of notes on the new NFS document that I found interesting.

National Science Foundation, “Science & Engineering Indicators 2012”

Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor Force

There are a few anomalies again in the NFS salary data for H-1B occupations, in six of the occupations (yellow Colorcode), H-1B workers with a Master’s degree are earning less than those with a Bachelor’s degree. It appears that in all six of these occupations, Master’s degree holders are also earning less than the average for “All degree levels”.

The Grey Colorcode indicates that Master’s degree holders in these occupations earned less than the “All degree level” average.

H-1B visa recipients tend to possess advanced degrees. In FY 2009, 58% of new H-1B visa recipients had an advanced degree, including 40% with master’s degrees, 6% with professional degrees, and 13% with doctorates. This degree distribution differs by occupation, with 83% of mathematical and physical scientists holding advanced degrees (44% with doctorates). Among life scientists, 87% hold advanced degrees (61% with doctorates).

Chapter 3, “Science & Engineering Indicators 2012”

I believe that the statement above can be paraphrased that 40% of 2009 H-1Bs have Master’s degrees, while 42% have Bachelor’s degrees – anecdotally this indicate a statistically valid sample. Mathematical, physical and life scientists would appear to have a higher occurrence of doctorate degrees, simply due to the fact that the NSF took the initiative to mention the fact.

In contrast, in the 2006 data, Master’s degree holders in Computer-related occupations and Writing earned $400.00 per year less than Bachelor’s degree holders in the same occupations.

If we had access to more data, such as the number in each group, location of employment, US or foreign degreed,we could probably make a determination why Master’s degrees appear to losing ground in this population.

A Notable Excerpt on Research & Development Employment

Between 1994 and 2004, R&D employment in the United States by foreign firms grew slightly faster than R&D employment abroad by U.S. firms. During this period, R&D employment in the United States by majority-owned affiliates 26 of foreign firms rose from 89,800 to 128,500, a 43% increase (figure 3-48). Over the same 10 years, R&D employment by U.S. firms at their majority-owned foreign affiliates grew 35%, from 102,000 in 1994 to 137,800 in 2004. Adding U.S. parent company R&D employment of 716,400 workers, U.S. MNCs employed 854,200 R&D workers globally (figure 3-49) in 2004.

The average annual growth in R&D employment abroad by U.S. firms from 1994 to 2004 was 3%. This shifted their proportion of overseas employment slightly, increasing it from 14% to 16% of total employment.

The 2009 data on MNC R&D employment abroad show a markedly different trend after 2004 from the trend in the preceding decade. About 85% of MNC R&D employment growth occurred abroad. Whereas employment abroad nearly doubled, domestic employment during the same period grew by less than 5%. As a result, the proportion of MNC R&D employment located outside the United States went from 16% to 27%.

The unprecedented increase in U.S. MNC R&D employment abroad contrasts with the continuation of modest growth in R&D employment by foreign firms in the United States. Because of this, unlike in 2004 and prior years, the amount of R&D employment attributed to U.S. MNCs abroad is much larger than the comparable figure for foreign firms in the United States (figure 3-48). The data in figures 3-48 and 3-49 are consistent with two trends discussed in this chapter: growth in S&T employment in the United States coinciding with a general expansion throughout the world of the capacity to do S&T work.

Chapter 3, “Science & Engineering Indicators 2012”

Radical Conservative Immigration Policy

2012-01-05T21:13:00.001-08:00

“Each 100 H-1B Initial Employment Approvals are associated with 90 job losses for ‘Natives’ from 2001 to 2010.”

We have yet another “study” of immigrants in the United States workforce, this one associates different classes of immigrants with employment creation for “natives”. The study is short on definitions, does not include a list of assumptions and does not include data, but heck let’s just take the author’s word that all is correct and good.

Today’s Featured Study:

“IMMIGRATION AND AMERICAN JOBS”

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW AMERICAN ECONOMY

Written by: Madeline Zavodny
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/aeireport

While the country teeters on the edge of a double dip recession, let’s plug-in some numbers into the formulas that the “conservative” think tanks are promoting as an employment growth solution. Our goal here is to reduce the Current U-6 Underutilization Rate by 33%, thus creating 8 million jobs for “natives” by allowing more immigration as Ms. Zavodny suggests.

I present “What if” scenario CASE 1: and CASE 2: for creating 8 million jobs for “Natives” as per Zavodny’s policy recommendation.

CASE 1:

Zavodny: “Every additional 100 foreign-born workers with an advanced
degree created an additional 44 jobs for US natives.”

In the table above we see that adding 18 million new persons with advanced degrees to the labor force “might” bring the Unemployment rate down to levels that are considered “full employment”.

On the other hand, if Zavodny’s conclusions are wrong and the economy does not create 26 million new jobs as a result of adding these immigrants, the Headline Unemployment rate (U-3) would climb to 18.3% and the United States would be stuck with 18 million more people to house, clothe and feed. This would be some pretty high-stakes policy poker.

CASE 2:

Zavodny: “Every additional 100 foreign-born workers who earned
an advanced degree in the US and then worked in
STEM fields created an additional 262 jobs for US natives.”

The chart above is a bit more conservative with 2.62 native jobs created for every immigrant with a US advanced STEM degree. In this case we only need to bring in about 3 million immigrants and dedicate 100% of the science curriculum to STEM disciplines – AND -- dedicate all of the NCES advanced degree programs to immigrants for the next 10 years.

The STEM occupations employ about 7.6 million persons, but only 1.8 million in the STEM occupations have an advanced degree. Another 3.3 million STEM workers have bachelor’s degrees and about 2.4 million have some college, an associate degree or less. Adding 3 million immigrants to a population which is now only 1.8 million -- might tend to affect wages a little bit.

If the Zavodny Formula for STEM workers were to fail and these new immigrants were to engage in an employment bidding war to remain employed in the United States, the likely result would be another spate of housing foreclosures. The Census homeownership rate is currently 66.3%, STEM is a well paying field, so failure of this Zavodny Formula could cause slightly more than 2.2 million additional housing foreclosures. Fresh out of college immigrants would predominately enter the rental housing market.

CASE 3:

Zavodny: “The estimates show that a 10 percent increase in
H-1B workers, relative to total employment, is associated
with a 0.11 percent increase in the native
employment rate. During the sample period of
2001–2010, this translates into each additional 100
approved H-1B workers being associated with an
additional 183 jobs among US natives.”

Okay, we get down to the meat of the “citizenship provisional” visa, the H-1B. This is the temporary worker program that encourages foreign nationals to squander their youth chasing the dream of US citizenship; it is reasonable to conclude that citizenship will not be awarded until the worker has completed 10 to 15 years of continuous employment. Why? Because corporate lobbyists have favored temporary immigration over the Employment Based Preference entrance visa with a 5 year Lawful Permanent Residence requirement prior to naturalization.

I have no idea how to decipher Zavodny’s statement, “…a 10 percent increase in H-1B workers, relative to total employment…”, is the 10 percent increase a variable in a regression formula? Or, an increase in the actual data? Is the 10 percent H-1B increase offset by a year, or instantaneous?

Displayed below is the actual H-1B Initial Employment Approvals aligned with the Total Loss/Gain in BLS employment levels for the years 2001-2010.

I can’t see how Zavodny arrives at a 100 to 183 jobs for “Natives” ratio for the same period, when considering the numbers in the above table, I guess I’ll never understand the new math(s).

Rebuttal Data:

Census Homeownership Data:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr311/graph311.html

Educational Data:

WebCASPAR Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System

https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome

H-1B Initial Employment Approvals:

“USCIS: Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers”

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009

Employment Level Loss/Gain Data:

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNU00000000

Not Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Unadj) Population Level

Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population

Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over

Data extracted on: January 1, 2012 (3:55:39 PM)

http://www.bls.gov/data/

STEM Employment and Educational Statistics

U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration

“STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future”

By David Langdon, George McKittrick, David Beede, Beethika Khan, and Mark Doms,
Office of the Chief Economist

Immigrant Founders -- The Rest of the Story

2012-01-02T19:29:00.000-08:00

Eighty percent, or 40 out of 50, of the country’s Top 50 Venture-Funded companies had one or more American born founders. No, I didn’t make up the statistic, I found the data and reversed the spin that the pro-immigration faction is trying to promote.

Updated:

Due to a data sorting error, I originally overstated the percentage of U.S. born cofounders in the Top 50 Venture Backed companies. This error has been corrected. See Footnote.

Other Findings:

Companies "Without a Foreign Born Founder" have employment levels 26% higher than the Top 50 average employment levels.

Companies "Without a American Born Founder" have employment levels 25% lower than the Top 50 average employment levels.

Companies with foreign born founders/cofounders (23 of 50) are almost twice as likely to apply for H-1B temporary guestworker visas.

Stuart Anderson’s organization, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), may be doing more harm to his cause than good. Whenever someone throws out a percentage and does not provide a divisor, you can be assured that they are hiding something.

This paper’s topic:

"Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel In America’s Top Venture-Funded Companies,"
By: Stuart Anderson

The NFAP study states: "The research finds that 46 percent, or 23 out of 50, of the country’s top venture-funded companies had at least one immigrant founder. This illustrates the increasing importance and contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy."

Mathematically, the NFAP statement makes no sense, how do you divide a variant number of founders by the number of companies? I was taught that you have to divide by "like" terms, cofounders and companies are not like terms. Curiously, the NFAP document has a Table with the names and birthplace of the foreign-born founders. However, after finding another source for the "Top 50" data, I find that the NFAP has removed the names of the U.S. born founders and eliminated the companies that did not have a foreign-born founder from the Table included in the NFAP Study.

After combining the two sources of data, I (also) found that 23 of the 50 companies selected did have one or more foreign-born founders/cofounders; however, 13 of those 23 companies also had one or more American born cofounders. Only 10 of the Top 50 companies did not have an American born cofounder.

Most of the Top 50 companies (36) are located in California, which has 34.9% population of foreign-born employed in the labor force, so the 31.9% foreign-born founders/cofounders (found in the table below) basically represents the population.

Top 50 Venture Backed Companies

Total Employees	10,314
Avg. Employees	206.28

	Number	Percent
Total Founders	119	100%
Foreign Born Founders	39	32.8%
American Born Founders	80	67.2%

With a Foreign Born Founder
Number of Companies	23	46.0%
Number of Employees	3,289	31.9%
Avg. Employees	143.0
*H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)	362	11.0%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)	23.09
**Avg. Year Founded	2004.9

Without a Foreign Born Founder
Number of Companies	27	54.0%
Number of Employees	7,025	68.1%
Avg. Employees	260.2
***H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)	445	6.3%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)	27.56
**Avg. Year Founded	2003.5

Without an American Born Founder
Number of Companies	10	20.0%
Number of Employees	1,295	12.6%
Avg. Employees	129.5
*H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)	154	11.9%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)	25.70
**Avg. Year Founded	2005.2

* (H-1B) Number of Visa Applications -- Percent of Number of Employees
** Avg. Year Founded is decimal
***Appia Inc., (with an employee roster of 51), applied for 214 of the 445 H-1B Work Visa Applications in "Without a Foreign Born Founder".
If Appia Inc. 51 employees and 445 H-1B applications are removed from the sample, the percent of H-1B applications would be 3.3% in the "Without a Foreign Born Founder" group of companies.

From the table above, I notice that the Top 50, Avg. Ranking for each group is similar, each segregated group is near the middle of the Top 50 Avg. Ranking. The two groups of companies with foreign born cofounders appear to have a slightly more viable ranking, but the foreign born founded/cofounded companies seriously under-perform in the" Number of Employees" category. Additionally, companies with foreign born founders and cofounders are almost twice as likely to apply for H-1B temporary guestworker visas.

The NFAP study trumpets that immigrants are crucial to employment growth. Conversely, the table above demonstrates that the "Without a Foreign Born Founder" group of companies employ 68% of the personnel while this group consists of only 54% of the Top 50 companies.

Key Positions Held By Foreign Born: The NFAP study also contains a table of key positions held by foreign-born employees, but here-again the NFAP does not include the universe of key positions. The NFAP uses the following statement to describe key positions:

Table 2: Immigrant Key Member of Management or Product Development Team in Top VC-Backed Companies

While it would be interesting to see if these companies have a preference for foreign-born employees, we would also have to take into consideration the percentage of employed foreign-born in each state’s labor force.

The following table examines the foreign born founder data in relation to location, and the prevalence of the population of foreign born employed within the specified states (from Census data).

	Founders		Foreign Born			Companies
Company Location	Foreign Born	U.S. Born	Aggregate	Percent	*Census Employed	Number
CA	31	56	31 of 87	35.6%	34.9%	36
CO	0	1	0 of 1	0.0%		1
GA	1	0	1 of 1	100.0%	12.1%	1
IL	0	2	0 of 2	0.0%		1
IN	0	3	0 of 3	0.0%		1
MA	0	2	0 of 2	0.0%		1
NC	0	1	0 of 1	0.0%		1
NJ	3	0	3 of 3	100.0%	25.6%	1
NY	3	6	3 of 9	33.3%	27.0%	3
TX	0	7	0 of 7	0.0%		2
UT	0	2	0 of 2	0.0%		1
WA	1	0	1 of 1	100.0%	14.3%	1

Total	39	80	39 of 119	32.8%	27.6%	50

*Census Employed is based upon the combined population of the five states of interest -- 2007 Census data An Unemployment rate of 5.2 percent would suggest that the foreign born Labor Force for this combined population would also be 32.8%

In closing, the majority of the Top 50 Venture-Funded companies are located in states with extremely high populations of foreign-born in the labor force -- the data shows nothing statistically remarkable about foreign-born founders. Moreover, the benefit of employment growth in foreign born cofounded companies is muted by a substantially higher application rate for temporary foreign workers and below average employment levels. In fact, companies Without a Foreign Born Founder" have employment levels 26% higher than the Top 50 average, while companies "Without a American Born Founder" have employment levels 25% lower than the Top 50 average employment levels.

Footnote:
I originally used a single data table to contain the cofounder data and manually sorted the single table to select the desired values for the Average and Sum spreadsheet functions. I must have inadvertently sorted the table an additional time, which in turn provided incorrect values for the Average and Sum calculations.

The corrected error:

~~Ninety-two percent, or 46 out of 50, of the country’s top venture-funded companies had one or more American born founders.~~

This error has been corrected, and learning from my mistake, I de-normalized the single data table into three separate data tables, which can be sorted without affecting the Average and Sum calculations.

I’ve updated the tables above this section to reflect the correct values for each table. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, and I want to ensure to everyone that I have the utmost respect for providing true and correct data regarding this important debate.

Source Data:

National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP)
"Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel In America’s Top Venture-Funded Companies,"
http://www.nfap.com/pdf/NFAPPolicyBriefImmigrantFoundersandKeyPersonnelinAmericasTopVentureFundedCompanies.pdf

Wall Street Journal
Top 50 Venture-Funded Companies WSJ.com
(This source provided founder data omitted from tables presented by NFAP publication)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190644237905576.html

Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force:

Employed Civilian Foreign-Born Labor Force by State: 2007
Appendix Table A.

www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf

H-1B LCA Application Data
http://www.h1bistro.com/

Appendix:

Data

Rank	Name	Location	Industry	All Founders	Employees	Year Founded	Immigrant founders	H-1B LCA
1	Castlight Health Inc.	San Francisco	Health Care	Giovanni Colella, Todd Park	100	2008	Giovanni Colella (Italy)	4
2	Xirrus Inc.	Thousand Oaks, Calif.	Information Technology	Steven DeGennaro, Dirk Gates, Patrick Parker	170	2003		0
3	Xactly Corp.	San Jose, Calif.	Business and Financial Services	Christopher Cabrera, Satish Palvai	140	2005	Satish Palvai (India)	13
4	Recycle Rewards Inc.	New York	Business and Financial Services	Patrick FitzGerald, Ron Gonen	150	2004		5
5	ExteNet Systems Inc.	Lisle, Ill.	Information Technology	Ross Manire, Eric Lekacz	86	2002		2
6	Cyan Optics Inc.	Petaluma, Calif.	Information Technology	Michael Hatfield, Rick Johnston, Steve West, Eric Clelland	102	2006	Steve West (South Africa)	16
7	Aster Data Systems Inc.	San Carlos, Calif.	Information Technology	Tasso Argyros, Mayank Bawa, George Candea	102	2005	Tasso Argyros (Greece) Mayank Bawa (India)	55
8	Glam Media Inc.	Brisbane, Calif.	Consumer Services	Samir Arora, Rebecca Bogle Arora, Ernie Cicogna, Susan Kare, Dianna Mullins, Raj Narayan, Fernando Ruarte, Vic Zaud	300	2004	Samir Arora (India) Raj Narayan (India)	6
9	Carrier IQ Inc.	Mountain View, Calif.	Information Technology	Bruce Lacey, Steve Roskowski	75	2005		16
10	Imperva Inc.	Redwood Shores, Calif.	Information Technology	Mickey Boodaei, Shlomo Kramer, Amichai Shulman	350	2002	Mickey Boodaei (Israel) Shlomo Kramer (Israel) Amichai Shulman (Israel)	14
11	Vidyo Inc.	Hackensack, N.J.	Information Technology	Alex Eleftheriadis, Avery More, Ofer Shapiro	140	2005	Ofer Shapiro (Israel) Alex Eleftheriadis (Greece) Avery More (Israel)	22
12	Etsy Inc.	Brooklyn, N.Y.	Consumer Services	Robert Kalin, Chris Maguire, Haim Schoppik, Jared Tarbell	185	2005	Haim Schoppik (Switzerland)	1
13	RGB Networks Inc.	Sunnyvale, Calif.	Information Technology	Edward Krause, Peter Monta, Adam Tom	175	2003	Edward Krause (Canada)	37
14	IronKey Inc.	Sunnyvale, Calif.	Information Technology	David Jevans	100	2005		8
15	Appia Inc.	Durham, N.C.	Information Technology	Jud Bowman	51	2008		214
16	The Active Network Inc.	San Diego	Business and Financial Services	James Woodman	2,500	1998		58
17	Nimble Storage Inc.	San Jose, Calif.	Information Technology	Umesh Maheshwari, Varun Mehta	55	2008	Umesh Maheshwari (India) Varun Mehta (India)	7
18	PatientSafe Solutions Inc.	San Diego	Health Care	Kim Rubin, David Swenson	80	2002		0
19	Glaukos Corp.	Laguna Hills, Calif.	Health Care	Olav Bergheim, Richard Hill, Morteza Gharib	40	2001	Olav Bergheim (Norway) Morteza Gharib (Iran)	0
20	Fusion-io Inc.	Salt Lake City	Information Technology	David Flynn, Rick White	370	2006		4
21	Achaogen Inc.	South San Francisco, Calif.	Health Care	Nathaniel David, J. Kevin Judice, Floyd Romesberg, Peter Schultz	64	2004		3
22	NeuroPace Inc.	Mountain View, Calif.	Health Care	Robert Fischell, David Fischell	90	1997		4
23	Xoom Corp.	San Francisco	Business and Financial Services	Alan Braverman, Kevin Hartz	70	2001		19
24	Workday Inc.	Pleasanton, Calif.	Business and Financial Services	Aneel Bhusri, David Duffield	650	2005		21
25	SpiderCloud Wireless Inc.	Santa Clara, Calif.	Information Technology	Peter Wexler	60	2008		20
26	Jive Software Inc.	Palo Alto, Calif.	Information Technology	Bill Lynch, Matt Tucker	336	2001		6
27	Federated Media Publishing	San Francisco	Consumer Services	John Batelle	165	2005		2
28	Boku Inc.	San Francisco	Business and Financial Services	Mark Britto, Ron Hirson, Erich Ringewald	65	2009	Mark Britto (Singapore) Ron Hirson (South Africa)	7
29	Zoosk Inc.	San Francisco	Consumer Services	Shayan Zadeh, Alexander Mehr	80	2007	Shayan Zadeh (Iran) Alexander Mehr (Iran)	8
30	EndoGastric Solutions Inc.	Redmond, Wash.	Health Care	Stefan Kraemer	120	2003	Stefan Kraemer (Germany)	0
31	Chegg Inc.	Santa Clara, Calif.	Consumer Services	Aayush Phumbhra, Osman Rashid	150	2007	Aayush Phumbhra (India) Osman Rashid (U.K.)	34
32	Everyday Health Inc.	New York	Consumer Services	Michael Keriakos, Benjamin Wolin	400	2002	Michael Keriakos (Canada)	26
33	Xsigo Systems Inc.	San Jose, Calif.	Business and Financial Services	R.K. Anand, Ashok Krishnamurthi, S.K. Vinod	110	2004	R.K. Anand (India) Ashok Krishnamurthi (India) S.K. Vinod (India)	36
34	Soasta Inc.	Mountain View, Calif.	Information Technology	Kenneth Gardner, Tom Lounibos	100	2006		3
35	Rally Software Development Corp.	Boulder, Colo.	Information Technology	Ryan Martens	241	2002		2
36	Prosper Marketplace Inc.	San Francisco	Business and Financial Services	Christian Larsen, John Witchel	38	2005		11
37	Pivot3 Inc.	Houston	Information Technology	Ryan Callison, Lee Caswell, Bill Galloway, Alan Skidmore	78	2003		3
38	Suniva Inc.	Norcross, Ga.	Energy and Utilities	Ajeet Rohatgi	190	2007	Ajeet Rohatgi (India)	4
39	Veracyte Inc.	South San Francisco, Calif.	Health Care	Bonnie Anderson	40	2008		0
40	ExactTarget Inc.	Indianapolis	Business and Financial Services	Chris Baggott, Scott Dorsey, Peter McCormick	850	2000		14
41	OncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc.	Redwood City, Calif.	Health Care	Michael Clarke, Max Wicha	76	2004		5
42	ExaGrid Systems Inc.	Westborough, Mass.	Information Technology	James Pownell, Dave Therrien	145	2002		1
43	SeeSaw Networks Inc.	San Francisco	Business and Financial Services	Peter Bowen, Jeff Dickey, Rocky Gunderson, Scott Hines, Monte Zweben	20	2006		0
44	Silver Peak Systems Inc.	Santa Clara, Calif.	Information Technology	David Hughes	150	2004	David Hughes (New Zealand)	21
45	Zilliant Inc.	Austin, Texas	Information Technology	Alex Chien, Deborah Vollmer Dahlke, Peter Zandan	120	1999		25
46	Yammer Inc.	San Francisco	Business and Financial Services	Adam Pisoni, David Sacks	100	2008		5
47	Bivio Networks Inc.	Pleasanton, Calif.	Information Technology	Junaid Islam, Jeff Payne, Homayoun Valizadeh	60	2000	Junaid Islam (Canada) Homayoun Valizadeh (Australia)	6
48	TxVia Inc.	New York	Business and Financial Services	Carl Ansley, Colin Fleming, Aaron Tay	150	2006	Aaron Tay (New Zealand) Colin Fleming (New Zealand)	27
49	Service-now.com Inc.	Del Mar, Calif.	Information Technology	Fred Luddy	300	2003		2
50	Aprius Inc.	Sunnyvale, Calif.	Information Technology	Marc Epitaux, Peter Kirkpatrick, Jean-Marc Verdiell	25	2007	Marc Epitaux (Switzerland) Jean-Marc Verdiell (France)	10

State Financial Distress: Measuring The Impact of Immigration

2011-12-21T13:02:00.000-08:00

Foreword:
Defining the costs of immigration is difficult because immigration is not binary (on/off), there appears to be a diminishing point of return where economic benefit from immigration is concerned. In my opinion, mass immigration has been used as a price-control on wages and a demand driver for housing inflation. According to the Census, the foreign born in the labor force was 15% as the beginning of the Great Depression and had also reached 15% in 2007. In the Great Recession, Census data shows that homeownership rates have declined more than 2%. The Great Depression was the only other time where homeownership rates (-4%) have had such declines since 1900.

The Immigration Debate:
In their attempt to create yet another economic bubble, economists, researchers and business leaders are promoting immigration increases in the media. These decision makers and their apologists are coming to the realization that a more highly educated immigrant may be more productive than migrant laborers, but they still refuse to acknowledge a displacement factor in employment and housing opportunities for established Americans. Further, the pro-immigration faction is contorting data and bending over backwards to deny that immigration has a measurable detrimental effect on U.S. States, citizens and permanent residents.

Instead of torturing the data, this paper will simply group the available data that indicates the fiscal health of each State. The fiscal health data consists of the housing foreclosures, High School Graduation Rates, State Budget Overruns and official Unemployment Rates. The States are ranked and sorted from best performing to worst, this ranking score is directly compared with U.S. Census, “Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force” data.

When the data is sorted by the state’s fiscal health ranking…

Data Sorted by Fiscal Ranking	Data Used to Determine Fiscal Rank of Individual States
Fifty States and District of Columbia	Foreclosure Rate: 1 Foreclosure per X units	High School Graduation Rate	State Overbudget: Total Gap as % of FY2010 Budget	Unemployment Rate: Average 2010-2011	Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force
Avg. States Above 50th Percentile	2971	79.3%	1.8%	7.3%	8.1%

Mean (50th Percentile) Hawaii	513	75.4%	2.5%	6.4%	20.6%

Avg. States Below 50th Percentile	752	70.6%	2.9%	9.9%	13.0%

In the States where the fiscal health is above the median we see: the occurrence of housing foreclosures in demonstrably lower, the average High School Graduation Rate is 8.7% higher, the average of State budget overruns are 1.1% lower and the average Unemployment rate is 2.6% lower. When we compare the Foreign Born Employed in the Labor force to the fiscal health rankings, we see a 4.9% lower average of working immigrants in states that are performing better than the Mean.

When the data is sorted by the foreign born ranking...

Data Sorted by Foreign Born Ranking	Data Used to Determine Fiscal Rank of Individual States
Fifty States and District of Columbia	Foreclosure Rate: 1 Foreclosure per X units	High School Graduation Rate	State Overbudget: Total Gap as % of FY2010 Budget	Unemployment Rate: Average 2010-2011	Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force
Avg. States Above 50th Percentile	2409	77.6%	1.8%	7.9%	4.7%

Mean (50th Percentile) Minnesota	817	86.5%	2.3%	7.1%	7.5%

Avg. States Below 50th Percentile	1302	71.9%	2.9%	9.3%	17.0%

When sorting the data by Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force: the occurrence of housing foreclosures is also demonstrably lower, the average High School Graduation Rate is 5.5% higher, the average of State budget overruns are again 1.1% lower and the average Unemployment rate is 1.4% lower.

Table 1, demonstrates that States that are performing fiscally better than averages also have consistently lower rates of Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force. Table 2, demonstrates that States with lower averages of Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force, also have better fiscal outcomes.

Examining the Pro-immigration arguments for more immigration…

“Immigrants will buy homes and cure the foreclosure crisis.”

The statement is patently false, employment displacement from immigration has caused the foreclosure crisis. As immigrant displacement climbs the social ladder with more liberal H-1B and L-1 visas, these immigrants are more likely to displace a citizen or permanent resident that was performing on a mortgage. The "No Document" mortgages were invented to provide financing for homes that were over-inflated by added immigrant housing demand.

“We need to fix the educational system, but until then we need immigrants to fill employment demands.”

First, there is no employment demand, in the last decade, employment levels only rose by 2 million, yet the Census shows that 6.9 million immigrants found employment. Second, Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate that higher immigration levels are associated with lower High School Graduation Rates.

“Immigrants are a net benefit and do not use excessive government services.”

This statement may be true, but Americans displaced by employment visa holders (and illegal aliens) are eligible lfor and will use government services. The services that immigrants consume are only a portion of the financial impact. Again, Table 1 and Table 2 demonstrate that higher immigration levels are associated with higher state expenditures.

“Immigrants create employment rather than displacing U.S. citizens and permanent residents.”

Table 1 and Table 2, demonstrate that higher levels of immigration are associated with Higher Unemployment rates during recovery from a recession. Another interesting fact is that temporary immigrants are generally not eligible for Unemployment benefits. Finally, the CPS data indicates that immigrants caused a net loss in the meager employment level growth of the last decade. (See Prior Post)

“If we don’t allow them to work here, they will go home and use their education to compete against us!”

If this statement isn’t protectionism, I may not have a firm understanding of the meaning of the word. If sending educated foreign student home is a problem, maybe we should stop educating these competitors.

Methodology:
One fact about the United States is that there are 50 States and the District of Columbia, is that all of theses territories are subject to U.S. Immigration policy. By taking the fiscal characteristics of each state, and ranking the results, we have a built-in laboratory to examine the outcome of our recent experiment in elevating the percentage of foreign born in the labor force. Referencing the Great Depression, the experiment of elevating the percentage of foreign born in the labor force has failed before, with similar results.

Financial health data is available for each of the state jurisdictions and the District of Columbia, this financial health data is “ranked” by state. The following categories are ranked and then compared separately to a ranking of foreign born in the labor force data.

The data is the most recent available and slight variations in the periods are inconsequential because we are measuring the outcome of U.S. Immigration policy and the effect on the State’s ability to provide employment, housing and services.

State Financial Health Data:

Foreclosures – number of foreclosures per X number of housing units (December 2010)
H.S. Graduation – State graduation rates for the 2006-07 school year (latest available)
State Budget Shortfall – 2010 budget shortfall data.
Unemployment – A State average of 2010 and 2011 unemployment statistics to Sept. 2011

The State Financial Health Data represents responsibilities that we expect from our State Governments and comparing these data on a state by state data will show where financial problems exist.

Scoring System: Each State Financial Health Data: category is aggregated into a State Fiscal Rank, where “ties” exist the data the numbering system contains identical rankings at that level and the total ranking for the category is reduced to account for the tie. The rankings are then totaled and divided by four, to reduce the weight of any categories that contain “ties”.

State Fiscal Rank: The four categories for State Financial Health Data are aggregated to find the Financial Rank. Due to ties, the Financial Rank aggregate category contains ranking from 1 to 47.

Foreign Born in the Labor Force Data: The foreign born in the labor force data was released in 2009 and contains data collected for 2007. (Foreign born data holds no weight in State Fiscal Rankings.)

Source Data:

State Budget Shortfalls:
Kaiser Family Foundation / statehealthfacts.org
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapreport.jsp?rep=49&cat=1

Unemployment Data by State:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Data extracted on: December 20, 2011 (12:09:44 AM)

Unadjusted data Jan. 2010 through Sept. 2011 (excludes preliminary data)

Foreign Born Employed in the Labor Force:
Appendix Table A.
Employed Civilian Foreign-Born Labor Force by State: 2007
www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf

Foreclosure Rate:
Kaiser Family Foundation / statehealthfacts.org

Represents the number of foreclosures filed for every X housing units during the month of December 2010. A foreclosure is a legal procedure by which mortgaged property is sold, upon default, in order to satisfy a debt. Foreclosures generally are governed by state law, and rules may vary between states.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=649&cat=1

High School Graduation Rates:

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education," 1986-87 through 2007-08; The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for Public High Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04; and Projections of Education Statistics to 2017. (This table was prepared September 2009.)

Appendix:

Ranking table

State	Foreclosure rate 1 per x housing units	High School	State Overbudget	Unemployment Rate	Immigration	Financial Rank	FR Ties
North Dakota	10805	83.1%	0.00%	3.7%	2.4%	1
Nebraska	2839	86.3%	0.92%	4.5%	6.4%	2
South Dakota	1943	82.5%	0.43%	4.8%	1.9%	3
Montana	1692	81.5%	0.00%	7.4%	1.7%	4
Vermont	20841	88.5%	2.83%	5.9%	3.5%	5
Wyoming	3080	75.8%	0.18%	6.5%	3.4%	6
Iowa	842	86.5%	2.26%	6.1%	4.5%	7	Tie
Maryland	1427	80.0%	2.03%	7.3%	15.7%	7	Tie
Massachusetts	1669	80.8%	2.04%	8.2%	17.0%	8
West Virginia	7642	74.8%	0.82%	8.9%	14.3%	9
New Hampshire	1324	81.7%	2.86%	5.7%	5.6%	10
Minnesota	817	86.5%	2.27%	7.1%	7.5%	11
Pennsylvania	1153	83.0%	2.36%	8.3%	6.3%	12
Maine	2351	78.5%	2.80%	7.8%	3.5%	13
Wisconsin	692	88.5%	2.37%	8.0%	5.1%	14
Oklahoma	1086	77.8%	2.84%	6.5%	6.7%	15	Tie
Connecticut	1288	81.8%	2.70%	9.1%	15.9%	15	Tie
Kansas	1148	78.8%	3.39%	6.9%	7.4%	16
Kentucky	1934	76.4%	1.45%	10.2%	3.4%	17	Tie
Virginia	968	75.5%	2.41%	6.6%	13.6%	17	Tie
Missouri	840	81.9%	2.27%	9.3%	4.3%	18
Arkansas	658	74.4%	0.91%	7.9%	5.4%	19
Texas	860	71.9%	1.07%	8.2%	20.6%	20
Delaware	891	71.9%	1.82%	8.3%	9.5%	21
District of Columbia	5488	54.8%	1.30%	10.0%	16.9%	22
Tennessee	1060	72.6%	1.21%	9.7%	5.3%	23	Tie
Hawaii	513	75.4%	2.52%	6.4%	20.6%	23	Tie
Indiana	779	73.9%	1.06%	9.5%	4.9%	24
Ohio	483	78.7%	1.39%	9.6%	4.2%	25
Utah	284	76.6%	2.21%	7.6%	10.3%	26
Alaska	1448	69.0%	2.89%	7.8%	9.5%	27
Idaho	309	80.4%	2.24%	9.4%	7.2%	28
New York	3042	68.9%	3.88%	8.3%	27.0%	29
New Mexico	765	59.1%	1.82%	8.0%	11.7%	30	Tie
New Jersey	718	84.4%	4.00%	9.4%	25.6%	30	Tie
Louisiana	1059	61.3%	2.78%	7.6%	4.2%	31
Colorado	420	76.6%	2.38%	8.8%	11.6%	32
Washington	693	74.8%	2.32%	9.4%	14.3%	33
Mississippi	1238	63.5%	1.93%	10.4%	2.6%	34	Tie
Alabama	1105	67.1%	2.37%	9.5%	3.9%	34	Tie
North Carolina	1398	68.6%	2.62%	10.3%	9.1%	35
Michigan	282	77.0%	1.58%	11.7%	7.1%	36
Rhode Island	870	78.4%	3.48%	11.3%	15.5%	37
Illinois	376	79.5%	4.37%	9.8%	17.8%	38
South Carolina	682	58.9%	2.15%	10.8%	5.5%	39
Oregon	583	73.8%	3.24%	10.3%	12.3%	40
Georgia	365	64.1%	2.88%	10.2%	12.1%	41
Florida	343	65.0%	2.85%	11.3%	23.8%	42
Arizona	201	69.6%	6.50%	9.7%	19.5%	43
California	203	70.7%	5.28%	12.2%	34.9%	44
Nevada	84	52.0%	4.68%	14.1%	25.2%	45

Census: Three New Immigrants for Every New Job

2011-12-13T16:38:00.000-08:00

For the decade, 6.9 million immigrants found employment while only 2 million jobs were created. There isn't really much to say except that people who are advocating more immigration must also be barking mad.

Taken from Census CPS and BLS CPS data.

Occupation		Newly Employed Immigrants -- Percent of Emp. Level Gain	Employment Level Loss/Gain
		Arrived 2000 or later(2)	(Avg. yr. 2010 - 2000)
.Management, professional, and related occupations	Major	1,629,000 (30%)	5,442,000
..Management, business, and financial		494,000	1,347,000
..Professional and related		1,135,000	4,095,000
.Service occupations	Major	2,106,000 (55%)	3,857,000
.Sales and office occupations	Major	985,000 (100%)+	(2,736,000)
..Sales and related		600,000	(335,000)
..Office and administrative		385,000	(2,401,000)
.Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations	Major	149,000 (100%)+	(181,000)
.Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations	Major	977,000 (100%)+	(534,000)
..Construction and extraction		817,000	(445,000)
..Installation, maintenance, and repair		160,000	93,000
.Production, transportation, and material moving occupations	Major	1,068,000 (100%)+	(3,857,000)
..Production		597,000	(3,465,000)
..Transportation and material moving		471,000	(392,000)

Total (Employed) Immigrant Gain and Employment Level Gain	Total	6,914,000	1,991,000

Percent of Employment Level Gain to New Arrival Immigrants	%	347%

Maybe Stuart Anderson's, National Foundation for American Policy would like to respond to these numbers.

About the Data:
"Employment Level Loss/Gain" is BLS-CPS data where year 2000 avg. employment levels are subtracted from year 2010 avg. employment levels.

"Employed Immigrants" is the Census-CPS employment status of immigrants arriving after the year 2000.
(2) The category 'Arrived 2000 or later' includes 2000-2010

Data:
Occupation of Employed Foreign-Born Civilian Workers 16 Years and Over by Sex and Year of Entry: 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2010.
Internet release date: 9/2011
http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/files/cps2010/T2.7.xls

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Data extracted on: December 12, 2011 (11:55:42 AM)

Series Id:           LNU02032201
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Management, Professional, and Related Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Management, professional, and related occupations (0008-3540)

Series Id:           LNU02032202
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Management, Business, and Financial Operations Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Management, business, and financial operations occupations (0009-0950)

Series Id:           LNU02032203
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Professional and Related Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Professional and related occupations (0999-3540)

Series Id:           LNU02032204
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Service Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Service occupations (3598-4650)

Series Id:           LNU02032205
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Sales and Office Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Sales and office occupations (4699-5930)

Series Id:           LNU02032206
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Sales and Related Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Sales and related occupations (4700-4960)

Series Id:           LNU02032207
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Office and Administrative Support Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Office and administrative support occupations (5000-5930)

Series Id:           LNU02032208
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (5999-7620)

Series Id:           LNU02032209
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (6000-6130)

Series Id:           LNU02032210
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Construction and Extraction Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Construction and extraction occupations (6200-6940)

Series Id:           LNU02032211
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations (7000-7620)

Series Id:           LNU02032212
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Production, Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Production, transportation, and material moving occupations (7699-9750)

Series Id:           LNU02032213
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Production Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Production occupations (7700-8960)

Series Id:           LNU02032214
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Employment Level - Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Occupation:          Transportation and material moving occupations (9000-9750)

Uninformed: “The other 90% are Employed”

2011-11-11T06:52:00.000-08:00

The “U” in the Unemployment rate, might as well stand for the word “Uninformed” for many talking heads, journalists and economists. In fact, 33% of the working age population (16 to 65) are not employed as of Oct. 2011. (66 million working age persons not employed.)

What Does Concealed Unemployment Mean?

When people who are out of work are not counted in official unemployment statistics for a variety of reasons. Those potential workers falling into this category typically include individuals who have given up looking for employment, those who have taken an early retirement even though they would prefer to still be employed and those with seasonal or part time employment. (source: investopedia.com)

This paper will be looking at a Bureau of Labor Statistics definition known as “Not In the Labor Force” (NILF). The NILF can conceal problems in Unemployment indicators and labor supply/demand problems caused by increased Population.

Definitions for this document:

Labor Force: The number of persons Employed plus the Unemployed

Unemployed: The number of persons in the age group who are defined in the U-3 “Headline” unemployment rate

Not In the Labor Force: Persons neither employed nor unemployed

Population: The Non-Institutionalized Civilian Population, those counted in the “Labor Force” plus those counted as “Not In the Labor Force”

BLS CPS: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey

End Definitions:

Chart 1 (Click on charts to enlarge)

Displayed in Chart 1, is the entire BLS data record for noted classifications for Ages 16 to 65. Chart 1, is provided to display the historical trends in the various classifications in the working age population.

Chart 1 shows the Population, Labor Force and Unemployed follow traditional trends with an understandable departure following the mortgage meltdown. The NILF however, departed from the long-term trend in 1999.

Chart 2

Chart 2 isolates the long-term trends in the NILF and Unemployment percentage rates, reinforcing the observation made from Chart 1.

Chart 3

Chart 3, focuses on 1999 going forward – starting with a fresh count at the end of year 1998. Thus, Chart 3 displays the “change” since end of year 1998.

There is a lot to absorb in Chart 3. Concerning the NILF, the additions to the NILF have exceeded the additions to the Labor Force (Employed plus Unemployed). The NILF accounts for 52.6% of the 26,229,000 added to the working population. Finally, 57.7% of the additions to the Labor Force were in the Unemployed subcategory.

Chart 4

Chart 4 is provided to display that there is a connection to the NILF and the prior few years’ Unemployment levels. The levels of the NILF category traditionally have fluctuated between 35 million and 40 million before a substantial increase of levels began in the late 1990s. Since the end of 1997, NILF levels have increased by 34.8%.

Also noted in Chart 4 is a change in the average Unemployment levels, From 1948 to 1971 the average Unemployment rate was 4.5%, from 1972 forward the average Unemployment rate has been 6.2%. Since 1981 average unemployment rates have increased by 37.2%.

Note: The significance of 1971 is that President Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods accord and closed the “Gold Window”. The “Gold Window” was an assurance that Federal debt instruments and Reserve Notes could be redeemed in gold. Closing the “Gold Window” caused the oil embargo and gasoline shortages of the early 1970s. Additionally, two severe depressions in Mexico followed President Nixon's 1971 actions.

Chart 5

Chart 5, shows year over year increase/decrease in levels added to NILF, Unemployed and Population. Chart 5 tends to indicate that lower levels of increase in Population level coincide with lower levels of increase in unemployment rates and lower levels in increase in the NILF category tend to follow.

There is always reserve human capital in the NILF and there are many reasons why people leave the labor force, one reason that is rarely discussed is that many self employed persons refuse to work below the cost of doing business.

Chart 6

Chart 6 deals with U.S. born population increases, population increases from immigration and employment level growth in the 16 to 65 age group. The U.S. born population data is births minus deaths in the birth year, with 16 years added to the birth year to adjust the year these children entered the working age Population.

Note: The Population increases from U.S. births and the Employment level increases are directly relational, the portion of Population increase from immigration may contain persons over the age of 65. For completeness, Employment levels have increased by just over 3 million for persons 65 and older since end of year 1998.

In conclusion, it is clear from Chart 6, that employment growth levels no longer support the United States traditional immigration levels. Charts 1 through 5 demonstrate that concealed unemployment causes the headline Unemployment Rate to be far below the actual rate of unemployment.

Data Sources:

=======================================================
Data Sources: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Downloaded 10/09/2011
(Ages "65 years and over" are subtracted from "16 years and over" to determine the various levels in ages 16 to 65)
=======================================================

Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Series Id: LNU00000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over

=======================================================

Series Id: LNU01000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Series Id: LNU01000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level - 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over

=======================================================

Series Id: LNU03000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Series Id: LNU03000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over

=======================================================

Series Id: LNU05000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Series Id: LNU05000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over

=======================================================
U.S. Born Population Birth/Death Data
=======================================================
Source: U.S. National Center for Health Statistics,Vital Statistics of the United States, and National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR).

For more information:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm

Internet release date: 09/30/2011
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0078.xls

Train your replacment

2011-11-08T19:29:00.000-08:00

Wall Street Journal Blogs
Infosys Employee Testifies on Alleged Visa Fraud
By Megha Bahree and Miriam Jordan
July 28, 2011, 10:48 AM IST

In a statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security on Tuesday, Jay Palmer, the whistleblower at Infosys, said the company “intentionally violated our visa and tax laws for the purpose of increasing revenues.” Mr. Palmer accused Infosys of frequently violating U.S. visa laws and of staffing multiple client projects with illegal employees, including at Goldman Sachs, American Express, Wal-Mart and Johnson Control, among others.

Mr. Palmer filed a lawsuit against the company in February in Circuit Court in Alabama, alleging the company sought his help to circumvent U.S. law. The lawsuit has led to a probe by U.S. authorities.

Business Line
Infy visa case: Petitioner wants to prove he is right

Balaji Narasimhan
Bangalore, Nov. 12
In July, he [Palmer] said, “Infosys also decided to flood the consulate with applications in order to get as many approved as possible no matter the level of an individual's skill. This was totally about profit and not hiring Americans for jobs in the US due to higher salary requirements."

Updates Palmer vs Infosys:
Infosys’ H-1B visa misuse: US court denies arbitration in Palmer case

FP Staff Nov 10, 2011

In a major setback to IT bellwether Infosys, a US court has denied arbitration in the visa case filed by employee Jack Palmer against the software major.

Visa misuse: Infosys in trouble, again
Sep 7, 2011 0 Comments

After two earlier complaints of visa misuse, a third whistleblower complaint has been filed against the software giant for non-compliance of form I-9.

Palmer’s lawsuit against Infosys gets teeth as allegations snowball
Sep 9, 2011 14 Comments

All three whistle-blowers, including Palmer have said Infosys misused short-term B1 visitors’ visas to bring in low-cost engineers from India. If Infosys was hoping to settle with Palmer out of court the odds aren’t looking too good for Infosys.

ConputerWorld
Fired IT workers file lawsuit claiming H-1B workers replaced them

Workers file suit against Molina Healthcare and its outsourcer, Cognizant
By Patrick Thibodeau
July 12, 2011 03:53 PM ET

Eighteen IT workers in California have filed a lawsuit against their former employer claiming they were replaced by H-1B workers from India and then laid off in violation of the state's anti-discrimination laws.

In the lawsuit, the 18 workers say that IT managers at Molina Healthcare Inc. increasingly catered to the Indian workers while leaving U.S. workers, mostly security analysts and programmers who earned at least $75,000 a year, feeling excluded prior getting laid off last year.

SFGate
BofA: Train your replacement, or no severance pay for you
June 09, 2006
David Lazarus

"If people want their severance packages, they have to train their replacements," a senior engineer at one of BofA's Bay Area facilities told me. "There's nothing in writing that says this -- the bank's been careful about that. But it's made clear at meetings what we're supposed to do."

Shirley Norton, a BofA spokeswoman, confirmed that while workers aren't being explicitly told they have to train their replacements or risk losing severance pay, they are being instructed that severance pay is contingent on satisfactorily completing their jobs.

Completing their jobs, in turn, can include training replacements from India, she said.

San Francisco Business Times
Bank job: You're fired, now go train your replacement
Date: Sunday, November 24, 2002, 9:00pm PST

Sure enough, dozens of Indian tech workers have been visiting BofA's major tech centers in Concord, Jacksonville, Fla., and other cities around the country recently. They're getting training on work they'll do back at home for about half what departing employees are paid. The bank confirms that some laid-off workers are being required to help train new ones (and not speak to the media) as a condition of receiving severance.

The fact that BofA is simultaneously cutting jobs here, outsourcing similar work and requiring old job-holders to train new ones shouldn't lead anyone to assume these moves are in any way related, a spokeswoman insisted.

"Our sourcing strategy and these job cuts in response to economic conditions are completely separate," said BofA spokeswoman Juliet Don in San Francisco.

BusinessWeek
IBMers Training their Replacements?
Posted by: Steve Hamm on March 10

Why not just take the pink slip and tell your boss to shove it? How widespread is this practice of forcing people to train their replacements? How does it work? Do other companies do similar things?

Pleasanton Weekly
Tri-Valley University brought students and spouses into U.S.
Times of India cites ministry report
by Glenn Wohltmann

Tri-Valley University not only brought students over to Pleasanton on illegal visas, but many of those students brought their spouses here as well, according to The Times of India.
The paper cites an Indian ministry report that says a number of immigrants got their spouses admitted at Tri-Valley, which helped them get an extended stay of up to eight years with illegal student work permits, or brought them into the United States through dependent H-4 visas, the report says.

Once in, some secured admission in accredited universities and got F-1 student visas. Later, many shifted to Tri-Valley, according to the report cited by The Times, which said the university gave them the opportunity to work from day one, although Tri-Valley was not authorized to do so.

Department of Justice
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008
iGate Mastech Inc. to Pay $45,000 in Civil Penalties to Settle Discrimination Claim

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice today announced that iGate Mastech Inc. (iGate), a Pittsburgh computer consulting company, has agreed to pay $45,000 in civil penalties to settle allegations that iGate discriminated against United States citizens in its employment practices. The settlement also requires iGate to train its recruitment personnel and to post a nondiscrimination statement on its Web site.

The settlement stems from the Department’s finding that, between May 9, 2006, and June 4, 2006, iGate placed 30 job announcements for computer programmers that expressly favored H-1B visa holders to the exclusion of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other legal U.S. workers. Such preference constituted citizenship status discrimination and is prohibited by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Purple Squirrel

2011-10-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

In its effort to create the 787 commercial airplane, it appears that Boeing has also participated in the search for the elusive Purple Squirrel. The Boeing 787 has been an offshore outsourcing failure, a costly lesson learned by the largest exporter in United States. The bird (787) does fly, but with a 3-year overdue delivery date, Boeing has had to provide price discounts of 25% on some of the earliest pre-purchases.

Project managers often use the “Faster, Cheaper, Better” mantra to sell a project based upon optimistic timelines or budgets, most engineers will respond with “pick two” and more often than not the engineers are correct.

The 787 Project:

Faster:
Failed, 2008 projected date, time wasted creating outsourcer supply-chain difficulties. Technology issues also arose during the project – which should have been expected in cases where emerging technologies are employed.

Cheaper:
I’m sure that Boeing’s version of cheaper didn’t include cost and time overruns and deep discounts granted to companies who placed pre-production purchase orders. See “Better”

Better:
Commercial airplanes are the ultimate durable-good, many are flown for decades and safety should be the ultimate concern; “Better” should have the highest priority. The “Cheaper” aspect of the project could still be salvaged, if purchasers find that the 787 is a durable (and safe) aircraft. Boeing may experience a lager market share, offsetting production and engineering cost overruns, dependent upon durability and fuel savings. The Boeing 737 Wikipedia entry says that there are still thousand of 737s in the air at all times of the day.

The point is, that Boeing went cheap on the “Faster” aspect of the project and paid the price. Attempting to save time and money on project engineering, Boeing assumed that outsourcing would somehow mitigate a failure to maintain “institutional knowledge” and/or a resistance to train new staff.

"You have to realize that we hadn’t done a major development program at Boeing since the triple seven, you know that was 20 years ago, we had lost a lot of the institutional knowledge, we have got a lot of institutional knowledge now, we have trained 12,000 to 13,000 Engineers on how to do it right." Video transcript excerpt: Jim Albaugh, CEO Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Some people in management tend to believe that Purple Squirrels do exist. Somehow, somewhere there is a highly skilled employee candidate who is pre-configured with the exact skills and knowledge needed to staff a project that may even involve emerging technology. Once the list of United States candidates have been exhausted/discounted, management lobbies the government for more temporary employment visas because they want to look at more squirrels to see if they can find a purple one.

The Wall Street Journal has actually printed an article that doesn’t blindly support the “shortage” of Purple Squirrels in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math candidates. During the worst employment market since the Great Depression, there are lots of squirrels – again many employers are still not interested in squirrels that are not purple.

Dr. Peter Cappelli, Director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources, in The Wall Street Journal:

With an abundance of workers to choose from, employers are demanding more of job candidates than ever before. They want prospective workers to be able to fill a role right away, without any training or ramp-up time.

In other words, to get a job, you have to have that job already. It's a Catch-22 situation for workers—and it's hurting companies and the economy.

To get America's job engine revving again, companies need to stop pinning so much of the blame on our nation's education system. They need to drop the idea of finding perfect candidates and look for people who could do the job with a bit of training and practice.

Dr. Peter Cappelli, “Why Companies Aren’t Getting the Employees They Need” The Wall Street Journal, 10/24/2011

Dr. Cappelli did a follow up article due to the avalanche of reader response.

Most of the emails I received were in support of my argument, especially from readers struggling to get a job themselves. No surprise there. But a remarkable number of those who wrote were in positions where they were hiring, including recruiters. They reported that their organizations had shortages of employees because they would not train or invest in new hires.

My favorite email came from somebody in a company that had 25,000 applicants for an engineering position and the staffing people said none of them were qualified. Could that really be possible? Link

Once the employer and recruiter have determined that there is no such thing as a Purple Squirrel, they tend to complain that there are not enough temporary work visas squirrels. A suspicious mind may conclude that employers might want to have additional leverage over any worker that they need to train -- a work-visa might just fit the definition of leverage for squirrels who don't happen to be purple.

Fortunately, the CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Jim Albaugh) has come to the realization that regular squirrels can be trained just like purple ones. Mr. Albaugh also appears to have come to the realization that squirrels tend to work better together in-groups where the output can be controlled.

CNNMoney Video transcript excerpts, Jim Albaugh, CEO Boeing Commercial Airplanes “

You have to realize that we hadn’t done a major development program at Boeing since the triple seven, you know that was 20 years ago, we had lost a lot of the institutional knowledge; we have got a lot of institutional knowledge now, we have trained 12,000 to 13,000 Engineers on how to do it right.”

“I think we over-stretched this time with some of our technologies and I think that we didn’t completely think through the supply-chain that we put in place. I think we’ve been able to address the technology issues and we’ve pulled some work back from the supply chain, we’re doing it internally…”

“Obviously, whenever you have an issue you want to learn from it. We are doing a variant of the 787-8 and the 787-9 we’re doing more of the work inside the company now, we want to make sure we don’t lose control like we did on the 787-8”

Video Courtesy of CNNMoney

“Boeing's game changer finishes first flight”
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney October 26, 2011: 1:43 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/news/companies/boeing_787_dreamliner/

See also:

W.T.O. Ruling on Airbus Subsidies Upheld on Appeal
By NICOLA CLARK
Published: May 18, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/global/19wto.html?pagewanted=all

Special Thanks to Dr. Peter Cappelli for his WSJ article

Dr. Cappelli is the George W. Taylor professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and director of Wharton's Center for Human Resources.

Show Us The Workers -- Here You Go

2011-10-15T18:44:00.000-07:00

"Show Us The Workers - U.S. Employers Struggle to Fill Science, Technology, Engineering and Math ("STEM") Positions" is a published challenge made by Shanon R. Stevenson, of Fisher and Phillips LLP, a group of immigration attorneys in Atlanta, Georgia. The challenge is to disprove the "shortage of STEM workers" propaganda promoted by immigration attorneys and lobbyists. In her 2 page PDF document, Ms. Stevenson references a DOL publication, Foreign Labor Certification Annual Report, which is where I discovered the data for Table 2 and Table 3 of this document.

Ms. Stevenson writes:

"Despite the recession, the lack of jobs and the training fees charged to U.S. employers hiring foreign workers on temporary H-1B work visas, the U.S. Department of Labor’s ("USDOL") recently released Foreign Labor Certification Annual Report shows that U.S. employers are still struggling to find qualified U.S. workers in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math ("STEM"). Employers report recruiting for STEM positions for over two years in hopes of ultimately finding a qualified U.S. worker – often resulting in the employer losing lucrative contracts or having to resort to using contract workers."

Generally, when a firm is looking for new STEM talent, they look to the colleges, here's a table of the degrees conferred in areas that are rich in STEM curriculum for 2008 and 2009.

Table 1.
NCES U.S. Citizen and Permanent Resident STEM Related Degrees Conferred 2008 and 2009

Year: 2009, 2008
Citizenship (standardized): U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Academic Discipline, 2-digit Classification of Instructional Program (CIP)	Doctorate Degrees	Doctorate Degree-Research Scholarship	Master's Degrees	Bachelor's Degrees	Associate's Degrees	Total 2008 and 2009
03 Natural Resources and Conservation	585	208	4,802	19,033	2,388	27,016
04 Architecture and Related Services	143	88	10,795	19,267	1,125	31,418
10 Communications Technologies/Technicians and Support Services	6		752	9,760	8,904	19,422
11 Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services	974	423	19,387	73,795	57,910	152,489
14 Engineering	4,136	2,410	38,459	131,645	4,373	181,023
15 Engineering Technologies/Technicians	54	7	4,444	29,557	60,724	94,786
26 Biological and Biomedical Sciences	6,979	2,800	16,305	155,964	4,482	186,530
27 Mathematics and Statistics	1,001	456	6,349	29,343	1,698	38,847
40 Physical Sciences	3,798	1,824	8,376	42,710	3,874	60,582
41 Science Technologies/Technicians	5		45	599	2,817	3,466
51 Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences	12,245	2,263	116,062	230,794	323,051	684,415

Degrees Conferred	29,926	10,479	225,776	742,467	471,346	1,479,994

From the Foreign Labor Certification Annual Report, the occupations with more than 1000 Permanent (Residence) Labor Certifications are shown in Table 2, with the Office of Employment Statistics employment levels and Loss Gain.

Table 2.
TOP PERM Labor Certifications and Employment by Occupation.

OCC_Code	OCCUPATIONS WITH MORE THAN 1,000 PERMANENT LABOR CERTIFICATIONS	Number of Certifications	OES Employment 2010	OES Employment 2009	Employment Loss Gain
15-1031	Computer Software Engineers, Applications	9,854	499,280	495,500	3,780
15-1051	Computer Systems Analysts	5,695	495,800	512,720	(16,920)
15-1032	Computer Software Engineers,Systems Software	4,038	378,920	385,200	(6,280)
11-3021	Computer and Information Systems Managers	1,893	288,660	287,210	1,450
17-2072	Electronics Engineers,Except Computer	1,738	133,660	135,990	(2,330)
13-2011	Accountants and Auditors	1,595	1,072,490	1,106,980	(34,490)
15-1021	Computer Programmers	1,536	333,620	3678,80	(34,260)
15-2031	Operations Research Analysts	1,432	62,210	60,960	1,250
19-3021	Market Research Analysts*	1,233	Non Equiv. SOC	Non Equiv. SOC	N/A
35-2014	Cooks, Restaurant	1,115	901,310	898,820	2,490
17-2141	Mechanical Engineers	1,074	234,400	232,660	1,740
13-2051	Financial Analysts	1,042	220,810	235,240	(14,430)
15-1071	Network and Computer Systems Administrators*	1,034	Non Equiv. SOC	Non Equiv. SOC	N/A
17-2071	Electrical Engineers	1,003	148,770	151,660	(2,890)

	Employment Loss Gain				(100,890)

"Non Equiv. SOC" Represents Standard Occupational Classifications that have substantially changed from 2009, to the 2010 NAICS standard.

Again, from the Foreign Labor Certification Annual Report, shown in Table 3 below is the Top 10 Prevailing Wage Determination for foreign workers; additionally, employment level data for 2009 and 2010 and a Loss Gain column shown.

Table 3.
TOP Prevailing Wage Determinations and Employment by Occupation.

Wage	Prevailing Wage Determinations Most Frequent Users	Num of PWD	OES Employment 2010	OES Employment 2009	Employment Loss Gain
$41.30	Computer Software Engineers, Applications	9,282	499,280	495,500	3,780
$37.16	Computer Systems Analysts	3,330	495,800	512,720	(16,920)
$44.36	Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software	3,092	378,920	385,200	(6,280)
$42.44	Electronics Engineers,Except Computer	1,582	133,660	135,990	(2,330)
$28.87	Physical Therapists	1,441	180,280	174,490	5,790
$60.29	Computer and Information Systems Managers	1,412	288,660	287,210	1,450
$9.57	Landscaping and Groundskeepers	1,240	829,350	859,960	(30,610)
$35.30	Mechanical Engineers	1,239	234,400	232,660	1,740
$42.84	Financial Analysts	1,143	220,810	235,240	(14,430)
$32.52	Computer Programmers	1,101	333,620	367,880	(34,260)

	Employment Loss Gain				(92,070)

Table 3.(a) examines the Employment Level Loss Gain for 2010 and Includes Degrees Conferred in 2009 relevant to foreign worker most requested Prevailing Wage Determinations.

Table 3.(a)
Top Prevailing Wage Determinations, Employment Levels Loss/Gain, Degrees Conferred to Citizens and Permanent Residents

Department of Labor Prevailing Wage Determinations 2010 and Relevant Educational Programs for Occupation	Number of DOL Prevailing Wage Determinations	OES Employment Level (Loss Gain) 2010	Year: 2009 Citizenship (standardized): U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents Level of Degree or Other Award: All values	Year: 2009 Citizenship (standardized): U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents Level of Degree: Bachelor's
Computer Software Engineers, Applications	9282	3,780
Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software	3092	(6,280)
14.09 Computer Engineering, General	-	-	6,197	4,005
11.07 Computer Science	-	-	10,308	7,155
11.01 Computer and Information Sciences, General	-	-	29,984	16,169
11.04 Information Science/Studies	-	-	9,078	4,707
11.08 Computer Software and Media Applications	-	-	8,523	2,796
Sub Total	-	-	64,090	34,832
Computer Systems Analysts	3330	(16,920)
11.05 Computer Systems Analysis	-	-	1,749	923
Electronics Engineers,Except Computer	1582	(2,330)
14.10 Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering	-	-	15,123	10,733
Physical Therapists	1441	5,790
51.23 Rehabilitation and Therapeutic Professions	-	-	18,140	3,182
Computer and Information Systems Managers	1412	1,450
52.12 Management Information Systems and Services	-	-	13,971	7,435
11.10 Computer/Information Technology Administration and Management	-	-	8,263	2,216
Sub Total	-	-	22,234	9,651
Landscaping and Groundskeepers	1240	(30,610)
No NCES Educational Programs	-	-	0
Mechanical Engineers	1239	1,740
14.19 Mechanical Engineering	-	-	20,271	16,838
Financial Analysts	1143	(14,430)
52.08 Finance and Financial Management Services	-	-	39,096	33,315
Computer Programmers	1101	(34,260)
11.99 Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services, Other	-	-	3,690	589
11.02 Computer Programming	-	-	4,449	788
Sub Total	-	-	8,139	1,377

Degree Level: All Values:
Doctorate Degrees, Doctorate Degree-Research/Scholarship, Doctorate Degree-Professional Practice, Doctorate Degree-Other
Master's Degrees, Bachelor's Degrees, Associate's Degrees
First Professional Certificates (Post-Degree)
Post-Master's Certificates
Post-Baccalaureate Certificates 2 But Less Than 4 Year Certificates
1 But Less Than 2 Year Certificates, Less Than 1 Year Certificates

With employers complaining of a shortage of "qualified" candidates, the term "qualified candidate" cannot be considered entry level salary. Therefore, Table 3.(b) should be a fair representation for comparing median salaries against foreign worker salary offers. (In most cases, the Prevailing Wage Determination is low enough to recoup immigration and legal fees associated with employing foreign workers in the first year of employment.)

Table 3.(b)
Most requested Prevailig Wage Determinations with Office of Employment Statistics Mean Hourly wage for Occupations.

PWD	Prevailing Wage Determinations (PWD) Most Frequent Users	Num of PWDs	2010 OES Hourly Mean Wage	OES Hourly Wage Delta	Yearly Wage Differentlal per PWD
$ 41.30	Computer Software Engineers, Applications	9282	$ 43.47	$ (2.17)	$ (4,513.60)
$ 37.16	Computer Systems Analysts	3330	$ 39.06	$ (1.90)	$ (3,952.00)
$ 44.36	Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software	3092	$ 47.10	$ (2.74)	$ (5,699.20)
$ 42.44	Electronics Engineers,Except Computer	1582	$ 44.58	$ (2.14)	$ (4,451.20)
$ 28.87	Physical Therapists	1441	$ 37.50	$ (8.63)	$ (17,950.40)
$ 60.29	Computer and Information Systems Managers	1412	$ 59.27	$ 1.02	$ 2,121.60
$ 9.57	Landscaping and Groundskeepers	1240	$ 12.23	$ (2.66)	$ (5,532.80)
$ 35.30	Mechanical Engineers	1239	$ 39.65	$ (4.35)	$ (9,048.00)
$ 42.84	Financial Analysts	1143	$ 41.36	$ 1.48	$ 3,078.40
$ 32.52	Computer Programmers	1101	$ 36.01	$ (3.49)	$ (7,259.20)

Physical Therapists (Table 3.(b)) is highlighted to denote a large differential (Delta) between National Mean hourly wage and immigrant worker Prevailing Wage Determinations.

So, Ms. Stevenson, if there is demand for your immigration services, it isn't because there is a shortage of U.S. citizen or permanent resident candidates. In the aggregate we have lost about 100,000 jobs in these "shortage" occupations. Even within the "growth" occupations, in almost all cases, foreign labor applicants exceeded employment growth; this fact absolutely disproves the labor shortage thesis.

For instance, within Computer Software Engineers, Applications, if 9,282 immigrants were added to the employment roles and the employment levels only rose by 3,780 there are 5,502 Computer Software Engineers, Applications specialists who are now unemployed.

Table 4:
Occupational Majors: Employment Levels

OCC_CODE	Occupational Title	GROUP	Employment 2010	Employment 2009	Employment 2008
00-0000	*All Occupations*	total	127,097,160	130,647,610	135,185,230
11-0000	Management Occupations	major	6,022,860	6,116,380	6,152,650
13-0000	Business and Financial Operations Occupations	major	6,090,910	6,063,670	6,135,520
15-0000	Computer and Mathematical Occupations	major	3,283,950	3,303,690	3,308,260
17-0000	Architecture and Engineering Occupations	major	2,305,530	2,412,730	2,521,630
19-0000	Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations	major	1,064,510	1,308,380	1,296,840
21-0000	Community and Social Service Occupations	major	1,901,180	1,891,320	1,861,750
23-0000	Legal Occupations	major	992,650	999,020	1,003,270
25-0000	Education, Training, and Library Occupations	major	8,457,870	8,488,740	8,451,250
27-0000	Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations	major	1,716,640	1,745,670	1,804,940
29-0000	Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations	major	7,346,580	7,200,950	7,076,800
31-0000	Healthcare Support Occupations	major	3,962,930	3,886,690	3,779,280
33-0000	Protective Service Occupations	major	3,187,810	3,172,420	3,128,960
35-0000	Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations	major	11,027,340	11,218,260	11,438,550
37-0000	Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations	major	4,175,550	4,269,480	4,429,870
39-0000	Personal Care and Service Occupations	major	3,425,220	3,461,910	3,437,520
41-0000	Sales and Related Occupations	major	13,437,980	13,715,050	14,336,430
43-0000	Office and Administrative Support Occupations	major	21,503,800	22,336,450	23,231,750
45-0000	Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations	major	408,040	419,200	438,490
47-0000	Construction and Extraction Occupations	major	5,072,530	5,751,630	6,548,760
49-0000	Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations	major	4,928,960	5,114,150	5,374,850
51-0000	Production Occupations	major	8,236,340	8,927,130	9,919,120
53-0000	Transportation and Material Moving Occupations	major	8,547,980	8,844,700	9,508,750

Table 5:
Occupational Majors: Employment Loss Gain

OCC_CODE	Occupational Title	Loss Gain 2009-2010	Loss Gain 2008-2010
00-0000	*All Occupations*	(3,550,450)	(8,088,070)
11-0000	Management Occupations	(93,520)	(129,790)
13-0000	Business and Financial Operations Occupations	27,240	(44,610)
15-0000	Computer and Mathematical Occupations	(19,740)	(24,310)
17-0000	Architecture and Engineering Occupations	(107,200)	(216,100)
19-0000	Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations	(243,870)	(232,330)
21-0000	Community and Social Service Occupations	9,860	39,430
23-0000	Legal Occupations	(6,370)	(10,620)
25-0000	Education, Training, and Library Occupations	(30,870)	6,620
27-0000	Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations	(29,030)	(88,300)
29-0000	Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations	145,630	269,780
31-0000	Healthcare Support Occupations	76,240	183,650
33-0000	Protective Service Occupations	15,390	58,850
35-0000	Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations	(190,920)	(411,210)
37-0000	Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations	(93,930)	(254,320)
39-0000	Personal Care and Service Occupations	(36,690)	(12,300)
41-0000	Sales and Related Occupations	(277,070)	(898,450)
43-0000	Office and Administrative Support Occupations	(832,650)	(1,727,950)
45-0000	Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations	(11,160)	(30,450)
47-0000	Construction and Extraction Occupations	(679,100)	(1,476,230)
49-0000	Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations	(185,190)	(445,890)
51-0000	Production Occupations	(690,790)	(1,682,780)
53-0000	Transportation and Material Moving Occupations	(296,720)	(960,770)

	Employment Loss Gain	(3,550,460)	(8,088,080)

Source Data:
National Science Foundation WebCASPAR (Educational Statistics)
https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome

U.S. Department of Labor
Foreign Labor Certification Annual Report

Bureau of Employment Statistic: Office of Employment Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/oes

Suggestions for the Occupy Wall Street 99ers

2011-10-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

Update: Very pleased to see this video posted by a 99er supporter
End update:

A few things the 99ers should consider.

1.) Support Ron Paul's Competing Currency Bill HR 1098. "Legal money" has been eliminated in the U.S., the currency we have now is non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes and coinage with no intrinsic value. A roll of pre-1965 silver dimes, in metallic value would buy 30 gallons of gasoline today.

2.) Eliminate Corporate Personhood, if a corporation must lobby the government, it should do so through its shareholders and employees who have U.S. voting rights.

3.) Audit the Federal Reserve (corporation). If the U.S. Treasury is no longer the primary shareholder of the Federal Reserve, remove the Federal Reserve’s privilege to print/create U.S. debt obligations.

4.) Restore Glass Steagall and Bankruptcy protection for primary residences, currently second home mortgages can be negotiated through bankruptcy courts, but primary residence mortgages may not.

5.) Robo-signing foreclosure fraud is not a victimless crime -- it is still fraud. State courts should entertain Adverse Possession cases against all banks that cannot provide clear title. If the bank cannot prove that the it had title at the time the homeowner stopped making payments, the homeowner should from his/her evidence of property tax and maintenance records have legal recourse against the banks who have forever clouded the title on their property.

The secret to a successful retirement is a home that is paid for.

6.) Eliminate the “Social Security Wage Base” which is capped at $106,800.00 per year. Social Security (and apparently Medicare) contributions are exempt on wages above the $106,800.00 threshold. This is clearly a subsidy for those who benefit the most from the U.S. infrastructure.

7.) Eliminate Temporary Worker visas, these visas are labor market interference. Wage stagnation caused by labor oversupply, coupled with U.S. currency devaluation has destroyed America's ability to save, purchase homes and prosper. In the first decade of the 2000’s, employment levels only rose by 1 million in the 16 through 64 age group, while the population grew by 22 million. Another 2.2 million jobs went to those in the 65 and older age group.

7.1) Businesses want open borders, except where the U.S. taxpayer funded U.S. Customs Department detects and confiscates counterfeit goods and illicit copies of Intellectual Property.

7.2) Colleges want open borders, except State borders where they are allowed to charge much higher “Out of State” tuition fees.

7.3) A full 20% of college degreed immigrants are underutilized, working as cab drivers, nannies and dishwashers. Meanwhile, we are asking our kids to assume $80,000 in basically non-dischargeable debt for an undergraduate degree, only to then be required to compete against foreign nationals whose first college loan is for a (U.S.) postgraduate degree.

7.4) There are 5 million college degreed Americans and permanent residents who are also underutilized.

8.) Eliminate the Second Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Liberal immigration policy requires affordable housing for new immigrants and upward housing options for citizens, this tax subsidy reduces the available inventory of available housing, and combined with mass immigration, is a driving factor in creating housing bubbles. Additionally, these homes can be used as a tax dodge, i.e. rented out for Corporate Board meetings etc.

Lots of second-home buyers rent their property part of the year to get others to help pay the bills. Very different tax rules apply depending on the breakdown between personal and rental use. If you rent the place out for 14 or fewer days during the year, you can pocket the cash tax-free. Even if you're charging $10,000 a week, the IRS doesn't want to hear about it. The house is considered a personal residence, so you deduct mortgage interest and property taxes just as you do for your principal home.

The Housing Vacancy Permit: Vacant and blighted housing is a real problem that municipalities must address, destroying these homes would be an unconscionable waste of natural resources and withholding these houses from the market with taxpayer financing (TARP and other) is a moral hazard. The Housing Vacancy Permit would address municipal costs associated with vacant properties, inspections, policing, maintenance etc., before these homes become blighted.

There are 30 million renters in the United States, introducing the vacant housing inventory to the rental market could substantially reduce rental housing costs. A reduction of $200.00 per month, for each renter would introduce $6,000,000,000.00 discretionary spending into the economy each month. A reduction of $500.00 per month would equate to $180 Billion of redirected spending per year.

The goal of the Housing Vacancy Permit is to return vacant properties to the occupied inventory either through sale or rent. A short grace period for sale or rent would be allowed before Vacancy fees (double the property tax?) would commence, and if the property cannot be sold, it must be rented/occupied to avoid these Vacancy fees. Returning these homes to their useful purpose at the local level could defeat the Federal effort to keep these homes from being re-introduced into the for sale/rent inventory.

A reduction in housing costs would make U.S. workers more competitive globally, as rents and principal paid for housing is taxable at the State and Federal levels. Lower housing costs could also lower salary requirement and tax burden to U.S. workers.

The second best outcome for vacant housing today would be for the local municipalities to seize vacant homes through tax lien and reintroduce them into the for-sale or for-rent inventory at fire-sale bargains before they become blighted.

The Assault on the LAND of Liberty:

Economics is said to be the “The Study of Scarcity.” The Classic Economists were keenly aware of population’s effect on wages and rents; population is something neo-economists rarely acknowledge. For the last thirty years, economists like Greenspan have endorsed a policy of making labor plentiful and housing scarce.

As the U.S. currency has slowly been debased, moving away from gold and silver backed Securities, the smart money moved from Bonds and Currency to Real property; further, lobbyists and politicians found ways to inflate real property. Ultimately, since the currency in neither backed by gold or silver, the U.S. Currency is now backed by land under our feet, we are witnessing the foreclosure upon the Land of Liberty.

Myth: High-skill Vacant Jobs

2011-10-03T10:16:00.000-07:00

There will always be some flux in staffing levels, an unfilled jobs level of 8,000 in a corporation of 80,000 employees shouldn't be surprising. Employees change jobs for a myriad of different reasons; corporations also may also find the need to create new positions.

This analysis got buried in an earlier blog.

Here are some Vacancy Rates for IT related firms from the 2006 - 2007 era.

Hewlett Packard = 0.81
IBM = 0.58%
Microsoft = 4.85%
EDS = 0.97%
Google Internet = 8.44%
Cisco = 2.33%

In fact, the average of 30 companies with supposedly large Vacancy Rates averaged 2.27%. Two vacancies in one hundred seems reasonable to me, especially from my experience of sitting on hiring committees, filling a position can easily take six months. Paralyses by analysis tends to prevail on hiring committees.

30 U.S. Companies With Job Most Openings for Skilled Positions
(click image to enlarge)

The "job opening" source data for the table above came from the pro-immigration think "Nationational foundation for American Policy" (NFAP). I went to Yahoo Finance to find the size of each corporation, and then simply found the Vacany Rate for each Corporation.

The NFAP source data (published Jan 2008) was collected over 2006 and 2007 found 140,233 open jobs in a 13 page list of S&P 500 companies. The following Unemployment rates and levels are included below for those with Bachelor's degrees and above.

Unemployed College Graduates for the period in question:

December 2007 = 2.2% (972,000)

January 2008 = 2.1% (953,000)
February 2008 = 2.1% (944,000)

Series Id: LNS14027662

Seasonal Adjusted
Series title: (Seas)
Unemployment Rate – Bachelor’s degree and higher, 25 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 25 years and over Educational attainment: College graduates

When the H-1B immigration pundits throw-out tidbits of data in the media, they always seem to leave out information required to make an infomed opinion. In this case, the number of employes per open position.

STEM Occupations Lose 203,200 jobs in 2010

2011-08-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

Simple Question: "When an occupational employment level declines, shouldn't the occupation be removed from DOL Specialty Occupations List for non-immigrant visas?"

Top 2010 H‐1B Visas by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Codes, SOC Occupation Titles.
( DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Employment and Training Administration)
This is a partial list of H-1B affected STEM occupations valid for retraining assistance grants
(8/30/11 Corrected data query error: -- see Notes:)

SOC Code	SOC Occupation	OES Employment 2010	OES Employment 2009	Growth/Loss
11-1011	Chief Executives	273,500	297,640	(24,140)
11-1021	General and Operations Managers	1,708,080	1,689,680	18,400
11-2022	Sales Managers	319,300	328,980	(9,680)
11-3021	Computer and Information Systems Managers	288,660	287,210	1,450
11-3031	Financial Managers	478,940	495,180	(16,240)
11-3051	Industrial Production Managers	143,310	147,250	(3,940)
11-9111	Medical and Health Services Managers	282,990	271,710	11,280
13-1081	Logisticians	104,800	100,420	4,380
13-1111	Management Analysts	536,310	552,770	(16,460)
13-1111	~~Management Analysts~~	~~536,310~~	~~552,770~~	~~(16,460)~~
13-2011	Accountants and Auditors	1,072,490	1,106,980	(34,490)
13-2041	Credit Analysts	62,680	67,950	(5,270)
13-2051	Financial Analysts	220,810	235,240	(14,430)
13-2099	Financial Specialists, All Other	154,640	153,720	920
15-1021	Computer Programmers	333,620	367,880	(34,260)
15-1041	Computer Support Specialists	579,270	540,560	38,710
15-1051	Computer Systems Analysts	495,800	512,720	(16,920)
15-1061	Database Administrators	104,080	108,080	(4,000)
15-2011	Actuaries	18,320	17,940	380
15-2031	Operations Research Analysts	62,210	60,960	1,250
15-2041	Statisticians	22,830	21,370	1,460
17-1011	Architects, Except Landscape and Naval	87,700	101,630	(13,930)
17-2031	Biomedical Engineers	15,280	14,760	520
17-2041	Chemical Engineers	28,720	29,000	(280)
17-2051	Civil Engineers	249,120	259,320	(10,200)
17-2071	Electrical Engineers	148,770	151,660	(2,890)
17-2072	Electronics Engineers, Except Computer	133,660	135,990	(2,330)
17-2112	Industrial Engineers	202,990	209,300	(6,310)
17-2131	Materials Engineers	21,830	22,510	(680)
17-2141	Mechanical Engineers	234,400	232,660	1,740
17-2199	Engineers, All Other	139,610	159,680	(20,070)
19-1021	Biochemists and Biophysicists	22,800	22,860	(60)
19-1021	~~Biochemists~~	~~22,800~~	~~22,860~~	~~(60)~~
19-1022	Microbiologists	18,330	16,260	2,070
19-1029	Biological Scientists, All Other	30,430	29,630	800
19-1042	Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists	93,560	101,760	(8,200)
19-1099	Life Scientists, All Other	10,610	12,320	(1,710)
19-2012	Physicists	16,860	13,630	3,230
19-2031	Chemists	80,180	79,910	270
19-2032	Materials Scientists	8,390	8,880	(490)
19-3011	Economists	13,250	13,160	90
19-4021	Biological Technicians	72,940	74,560	(1,620)
25-1011	Business Teachers, Postsecondary	79,070	73,790	5,280
25-1022	Mathematical Science Teachers, Postsecondary	51,980	48,100	3,880
25-1032	Engineering Teachers, Postsecondary	34,400	34,270	130
25-1071	Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary	144,780	133,070	11,710
25-1124	Foreign Language and Literature Teachers, Pos	28,100	27,020	1,080
25-2021	Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Ed	1,485,600	1,544,300	(58,700)
27-1021	Commercial and Industrial Designers	28,670	29,170	(500)
27-1022	Fashion Designers	15,060	15,780	(720)
27-1024	Graphic Designers	192,240	200,870	(8,630)
27-3031	Public Relations Specialists	225,590	242,670	(17,080)
29-1021	Dentists, General	87,700	86,270	1,430
29-1051	Pharmacists	268,030	267,860	170
29-1062	Family and General Practitioners	97,820	99,000	(1,180)
29-1063	Internists, General	50,070	48,270	1,800
29-1065	Pediatricians, General	30,100	29,460	640
29-1069	Physicians and Surgeons, All Other	293,740	274,160	19,580
29-1122	Occupational Therapists	100,300	97,840	2,460
29-1123	Physical Therapists	180,280	174,490	5,790
29-1127	Speech-Language Pathologists	112,530	111,640	890
29-1199	Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners,	31,390	32,960	(1,570)
29-2011	Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists	164,430	166,860	(2,430)
41-9031	Sales Engineers	66,060	71,640	(5,580)

Notes:

NAICS-SOC Occupational Classifications were revised in 2010, some employment counts were moved within Major Occupational titles. The overall employment level count will be accurate, but individuals may have been moved from one occupation to another making individual occupations appear have gains or losses that were not new hires or separations.

Revised 8/30/11

Removed 2 double counted occupations -- In blue strikethrough
Revised title from "STEM Occupations Lose 219,720 jobs in 2010" to current.

Source Data:

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications for H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants

Announcement Type: Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA)
Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA PY-10-13
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 17.268

Appendix A
Top 2010 H‐1B Visas by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Codes, SOC Occupation Titles, and Annual Median Wage

BLS -- Office Employment Statistics
2009 - 2010
http://www.bls.gov/oes

The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program produces employment and wage estimates for over 800 occupations. These are estimates of the number of people employed in certain occupations, and estimates of the wages paid to them. Self-employed persons are not included in the estimates. These estimates are available for the nation as a whole, for individual States, and for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas; national occupational estimates for specific industries are also available.

College Graduate Underutilization 20.2% (5.059 million Americans)

2011-08-16T18:56:00.000-07:00

(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%)

Looking at the H-1B Process Through the Eyes of the Participants

2010-11-06T01:10:00.000-07:00

Looking at the H-1B Process Through the Eyes of the Participants

David S. North writes for Center For Immigration Studies, a very good read.

20.5 million Americans have a Bachelors Degree in Science & Engineering | Noslaves.com

2010-11-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

20.5 million Americans have a Bachelors Degree in Science & Engineering Noslaves.com

My comment:

STEM Workforce Data Project: Report No. 8

"Is U.S. Science and Technology Adrift?"
2006 Total STEM Employment = 7.2 million

STEM is Science, Technology, Engineeering and Mathmatics
https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM8_Report.pdf

Reducing the Potential for H-1B Abuse

2010-11-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

In any type of war, it’s very important to identify the enemy and their supporters. The enemy of American IT professionals are foreign labor speculators and foreign Business Process Offshoring specialists. We can identify both of these enemies in an NAICS Industry classification that contains both of these types of employers

In the war against global labor arbitrage, we have multi-fronts, one is comprised of foreign employers who have broken through our borders and are granted temporary work visas to facilitate offshore outsourcing. A second front is a beachhead comprised of semi-domestic labor brokers, concentrated in the skilled labor occupations, who provide the logistical supply-line for the enemy.

I may have found a useful tool for identifying these enemies of American prosperity; employers in an industry defined as NAICS 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. Though not all are enemies, some employers concentrated in NAICS 54 have focused on destroying our domestic Information Technology capabilities (Computer-related occupations) for personal gain. In the future, any specialty occupation can and will be targeted in the arbitrage scheme.

According to the IRS, all U. S. employers must obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN). Associated with the EIN is an NAICS Industry classification, the Industry classification prefix number 54 could be used to automate protections for the American worker by removing carte-blanche business immigration privileges from NAICS 54 employers. Currently, only H-1B Dependent employers and Willful violators are required to conduct labor market tests and advertise open positions to domestic candidates. If an H-1B worker will earn more than $60,000.00 per year, even these modest requirements are lifted.

H1B Dependent Employers

Before making an H1B application, an H1B dependent employer must make "good faith" attempts to recruit resident US workers using "procedures that meet industry-wide standards" and "offering compensation at least as great as that offered to the H1B alien". Given the wide variety of recruitment methods used in different industries, this provision is likely to cause some confusion both for the BCIS and employers. For example, Internet advertising might be in "good faith" and "meet industry-wide standards" for the IT sector, but would it for, say, the engineering industry? This is a matter that will demand careful consideration on the part of H1B dependent employers.

It is worth noting, however, that the recruitment attestation described above is not required by H1B dependent employers seeking to employ aliens with Master's (or higher) Degrees, or those earning in excess of US$60,000. Non H1B dependent employers are not required to make such an attestation in any event.

Source: Workpermit.com

Perversely, NAICS 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services is an industry that exists to earn a margin on value created by the accomplishment of others. In addition to classifying Offshore Outsourcing specialists, NAICS 54 also contains human resources and domestic consulting firms. Mismanagement and dwindling-receipts for these firms increase the temptation to charge foreign-workers large performance bonds, require personal service agreements (enforced in distant jurisdictions), and encourage fabrication of the foreign-worker’s credentials.

In this hyper-competitive business atmosphere, NAICS 54 employers are dependent upon margins from decreasing wages and foreign incursion into domestic service markets. Without intervention, these employers will destroy themselves and thwart innovation as maturity and employment-security within the industry are further discarded.

The professional sports industry is much like NAICS 54, in that the owners earn margins derived from the player’s skills. In sports, we have rules and referees, many of these rules are enforced so that players do not injure others, but also so they do not injure themselves. Without rules and referees, parents would not allow their children to play and the sport would suffer with substandard recruits. In soccer, we have the “yellow-card,” a warning, followed by the “red-card” which means ejection from the game in all languages.

It is my contention that NAICS “54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services” and all sub-classified employers should be considered “H-1B Dependent” regardless of number of employees -- a default “yellow-card” is issued so to speak.

If the “yellow-card” and “red-card” have no meaning, then the respect for the referee is diminished and violence in the game has no consequence. When the referees have been removed, the business of business is no longer a competitive game and civility is set aside, opponents and competitors become enemies and the game becomes war.

Crossposted to NoSlaves.com

The WTO GATS and H-1B Pundits Pandering in The Media

2010-08-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

I've noticed an interesting phenomena lately, studies on skilled immigrants get quoted in other later studies until the the quoted material has largely a different meaning.

Paraphrasing: 25% of new startup corporations had immigrant founders

The studies I've read on the immigrant founders appear to come from the same data, but the part left out is that the immigrant founder is generally one of five founders. From one of the early studies, I ran the numbers and found that when the four American founders are factored in, the likelihood of two immigrant founders in the same company would be low and that the performance of the immigrant founder reflected the immigrant population at large.

Some media and industry pundits have been quoting an NFAP study (Table 1) to infer that the H-1B visa is only .06% of the labor force and, from the omission of a footnote, infer that the numerical cap on H-1B visa has reverted to the 1998 levels of 65,000. The 65,000 H-1B cap inference is far from the truth in the matter.

The “American Competiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act,” (AC21) created special carve-outs with unlimited cap exemptions for certain Nonprofit, University and Government entities. Additionally, the “H-1B Reform Act of 2004,” added 20,000 visas to the H-1B for postgraduates of U.S. Universities. Without the AC21exemptions and additional 20,000 visas for postgraduates, a 1998 temporary increase in H-1B numerical cap would have expired in 2002 subsequently, an average 43,441 per year (since 2005) nonimmigrants would have competed for visas within the numerical cap of 65,000.

Average Yearly H-1B Approvals since the H-1B Reform Act of 2004 (2005 – 2009)

Avg. Initial Employment Approvals (2005 – 2009) = 108,441
Avg. Continuing Employment Approvals (2005 – 2009) = 153,504

Note: AC21 also provided additional single year extensions for PERM dual-intent applicants; this is why H-1B continuing employment approvals consistently exceed initial employment approvals since FY 2003 – effectively extending the H-1B and L-1 temporary visas from 5 to 7 years, into the decade timeframe.

Very creative taglines tend to be sensationalized in the zeal to increase the foreign worker quotas during this recession, from the NFAP study, “With the annual flow of H-1Bs representing only 0.06 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2009, arguments that H-1B professionals overwhelm the American workforce are not supported by logic or the facts.” Beyond the data-banding use of only a portion of the H-1B caps, quoting the statement misleads the casual reader, ignoring the fact that the H-1B is a six year duration visa and implying that all occupations in the Labor force are open to the H-1B program. Looking at the H-1B in terms of the entire Labor Force is quite slanted. The Computer related occupations data displays the misuse and subsequent cause for resentment of the H-1B program.

(IT) Computer Related Occupations:

Growth in Employment (IT) Levels (2005-09) = 382,640 (12% emp. growth)
H-1B initial (IT) employment approvals (2005-09) = 258,870 (67.7% of emp. growth)
(Source: USCIS, H-1B Characteristics Series)

(IT) Assoc. thru PhD Degrees Conferred (2004-08) = 529,798 (138% of emp. growth)
(Excludes temporary residents -- citizen and perm resident degrees conferred only)
(Source: NCES, IPEDS Completions Survey)

From the growth statistics listed above, we can see that the U.S. is being far too generous with the employment opportunities granted to citizens of Least Developed Countries (LDC). It is not by accident that the highest percentages of H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants come from LDC regions, LDC have preferential negotiating privileges in the GATS arena. Global Trade in Services, as a form of Direct Foreign Aid may be a noble cause, but the U.S. cannot afford to be so generous as to bankrupt its citizens.

The next section explores areas where U.S. immigration policy exceeds negotiated trade commitments.

Global Agreement in Trade and Services (GATS)

H-1B (Fashion Models and Specialty Occupations) and L-1 (Intra-corporate) visas are specifically named and committed in Global Agreement in Trade and Services (GATS) trade commitments. Eliminating the H-1B and L-1 visa programs would be next to impossible. However, under GATS, the terms of these visas are considerably different from the terms in U.S. law.

 Under GATS: there are no dual-intent citizenship provisions for H-1B, or L-1 visa, this is considered “poaching” and is detrimental to Least Developed Countries

 Under (AC21) U.S. Law: The H-1B and L-1 visa durations may be extended into the decade timeframe: ”The Attorney General shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies for an exemption under subsection (a) in one-year increments until such time as a final decision is made on the alien’s lawful permanent residence.”

 Under GATS, the H-1B is a three year visa with a 65,000 per year worldwide limitation.

 There is no GATS requirement or provision for extension of the H-1B beyond 3 years.

 Under GATS, the L-1 visa is allowed a single 2 year extension; under U.S. law the L-1A can be granted two 2 year extensions after the initial 3 year period.

 Under GATS, the no-layoff provisions are 6 month preceding and 90 days following a nonimmigrant employment application. Under US Law the layoff restrictions are 90 days – 90 days, but the 90/90 rule is only applicable for H-1B Dependent Employers.

Over a six year period (2004-09), Americans assumed about 101,000 of 600,000 new jobs in Computer related occupations (IT). for a matching period (2003-08) about 110,000 postgraduate IT degrees were awarded to American citizens and permanent residents. This indicates that only Americans with postgraduate degrees are being hired and that the minimum educational level for H-1B in IT occupations should be raised to the postgraduate level. Moreover, 2006 NSF data indicates that 31,000 of the 57,000 new H-1B awarded in IT had undergraduate degrees.

http://immigration-weaver.blogspot.com/2010/06/h-1b-visa-impact-on-computer-related.html

US GATS Commitment

d) the employer has not laid off or otherwise displaced workers in the subject occupation in the previous six months and will not lay off or displace any US worker during the 90-day period following the filing of an application or the 90-day periods preceding and following the filing of any visa petition supported by the application; e) the employer has taken and is taking timely and significant steps to recruit and retain sufficient US workers in the specialty occupation; and f) notice is given at the time of application by the employer to employees or their representatives at the place of employment.

US 20 CFR 655.738

(c) Direct displacement. An H-1B-dependent or willful-violator employer (as described in §655.736) is prohibited from displacing a U.S. worker in its own workforce (i.e., a U.S. worker "employed by the employer") within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the filing date of an H-1B petition supported by an LCA described in §655.736(g). The following standards and guidance apply under the direct displacement prohibition:

I'm just saying, a lot of times what's written and what the truth is are sometimes a bit misleading.

Source:

N A T I O N A L F O U N D A T I O N F O R A M E R I C A N P O L I C Y

H - 1 B V I S A S B Y T H E N U M B E R S: 2 0 1 0 A N D B E Y O N D

http://www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf

GATS Conditions to Achieve Developing Country Objectives
http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=109&Itemid=&lang=en

GATS -- THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - INITIAL OFFER

http://www.uscsi.org/pdf/USinitialoffer.pdf

GATS DATABASE of Commitments (Commitments have changed since initial offer)
http://tsdb.wto.org/default.aspx

TITLE I— AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (AC21)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/sd106-30/pdf/pl106-313.pdf

‘‘(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) who is employed (or has received an offer of employment) at— ‘‘(A) an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or ‘‘(B) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization.

H-1B Dependent Employer
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/title_20/Part_655/20CFR655.736.htm

Displacement of US worker obligation for H-1B dependent and Willful Violators
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/title_20/Part_655/20CFR655.738.htm

Allocation of Additional H-1B Visas Created by the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004 [70 FR 23775] [FR 19-05]
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/FR/HTML/FR/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-102229/0-0-0-106136/0-0-0-106262.html

Immigrant Intent and the Dual Intent Doctrine
Written by Henry J. Chang
http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html

Appendix 1
Current subsection of GATS US Commitments concerning L-1 and H-1B visa

All Sectors: Temporary Entry And Stay of Natural Persons1

4) Unbound, except for measures concerning temporary entry and stay of nationals of another member who fall into the categories listed below:

4) Unbound

Services Salespersons - persons not based in the territory of the United States and receiving no remuneration from a source located within the United States, who are engaged in activities related to representing a services supplier for the purpose of negotiating for the sale of the services of that supplier where: a) such sales are not directly made to the general public and b) the salesperson is not engaged in supplying the service. Entry for persons named in this section is limited to a ninety-day period.

Intra-corporate Transferees - managers, executives and specialists, as defined below, who are employees of firms that provide services within the United States through a branch, subsidiary, or affiliate established in the United States and who have been in the prior employ of their firm outside the United States for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the date of their application for admission and who are one of the following:

a) Managers - persons within an organization who primarily direct the organization, or a department or sub-division of the organization, supervise and control the work of other supervisory, professional or managerial employees, have the authority to hire and fire or recommend hiring, firing, or other personnel actions (such as promotion or leave authorization), and exercise discretionary authority over day-to-day operations. Does not include first-line supervisors, unless the employees supervised are professionals, nor does it include employees who primarily perform tasks necessary for the provision of the service.

b) Executives - persons within the organization who primarily direct the management of the organization, establish the goals and policies of the organization, exercise wide latitude in decision-making, and receive only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the business. Executives would not directly perform tasks related to the actual provision of a service or services of the organization.

c) Specialists - persons within an organization who possess knowledge at an advanced level of continued expertise and who possess proprietary knowledge of the organization's services, research equipment, techniques, or management. (Specialists may include, but are not limited to, members of licenced professions.)

Entry for persons named in this section is limited to a three-year period that may be extended for up to two additional years for a total term not to exceed five years.

Personnel Engaged in Establishment - A person who has been employed in the immediately preceding year by an entity described in Section II, receiving remuneration from that source, who occupies a managerial or executive position with that entity and is entering the territory of the United States for the purpose of establishing an entity described in Section II that will support employment of persons named in paragraphs a), b), and c) therein. The subject persons shall present proof of acquisition of physical premises for the entity that shall commence its business operations within one year of the date of entry of that person.

Fashion Models and Specialty Occupations - Up to 65,000 persons annually on a world-wide basis in occupations as set out in 8 USC. ' 1101 (a) (15) (H) (i) (b), consisting of (i) fashion models who are of distinguished merit and ability; and (ii) persons engaged in a specialty occupation, requiring (a) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. Persons seeking admission under (ii) above shall possess the following qualifications: (a) full licensure in a US state to practice in the occupation, if such licensure is required to practice in the occupation in that state; and (b) completion of the required degree, or experience in the specialty equivalent to the completion of the required degree and recognition of expertise in the specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the specialty. Entry for persons named in this section is limited to three years.

Specialty occupation aliens and their employers must be in compliance with all labour condition application requirements that are attested to by the established employer. These requirements are: a) wages paid to the person are the greater of: 1) the actual wage paid by the employer to individuals in that place of employment with similar qualifications and experience, or 2) the prevailing wage for that occupational classification in the area of employment; b) conditions of work are such that they will not adversely affect working conditions for those similarly employed; c) there is no strike or lockout in the course of a labour/management dispute in progress at the place of employment affecting the subject occupation; labour/management dispute in progress at the place of employment;

d) the employer has not laid off or otherwise displaced workers in the subject occupation in the previous six months and will not lay off or displace any US worker during the 90-day period following the filing of an application or the 90-day periods preceding and following the filing of any visa petition supported by the application; e) the employer has taken and is taking timely and significant steps to recruit and retain sufficient US workers in the specialty occupation; and f) notice is given at the time of application by the employer to employees or their representatives at the place of employment.

Unemployment or Non-Employment: Non-Employment Rate 26.9%

2010-07-27T09:21:00.000-07:00

This graph displays a Non-Employment rate of 26.9% among the working age population. Measuring employment growth to population growth since 1950, persons under age 16 and over age 65 are excluded from the BLS-CPS data-set(s) to make a determination of "working age population" and "working age employment".

(Click on image to enlarge - a second click on new page may be required for proper resolution.)

The working age population and working age employment data-subsets are aggregated to produce growth statistic(s) starting from end of year levels in 1949.

The "Delta (Non-employment)" growth values are shown as negative for display purposes. This Delta is the difference between the working age population growth and working age employment growth. Of the 105,229,000 in the working age population, 28,255,000 were not working on Dec. 31, 2009. Keep in mind that the BLS-CPS definition of "Employed" is fairly liberal and includes part-time workers.

As a comparison to current levels, in 1998, the working age population growth was 80,662,000 and the non-employed in that population was 6,571,000 (8.1%).

Since 1998, the working age population has increased by 24,567,000 (30.5%) while employment in the working age group increased by only 2,883,000 (3.9%).

Another post that uses these growth statistics...
Employment Growth vs. Population Growth by Decade

Employment Growth vs. Population Growth by Decade

2010-06-24T12:54:00.001-07:00

A very simple calculation reveals that the working age population (16 through 64), increased by 22 million in the first decade of the 21st century; employment growth for the decade was only 1 million jobs in the working age population. Total employment growth for the decade was only 3.2 million, two thirds of total employment growth went to persons 65 yrs. and older.

Employment Growth vs. Population Growth by Decade:

Disturbing economic data that the "headline" unemployment statistic (U-3) does not describe. Employment growth,verses population growth in the decade of 2000-09, seriously underperformed preceding decades. The under-performance was apparent before the employment contraction in 2008; the May 2010 adjustments of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are now available, so I'm revisiting the topic.

The data we are looking at is the growth in BLS Employment Levels as compared to the BLS Civilian noninstitutional population -- "Growth in Employment" and "Growth in Population" respectively. Growth in Population is our children and growth from immigration -- Growth in Employment is the net employment growth at the end of the decade.

Click images to enlarge

Employment Growth to Population Growth: by Decade (Age 16 and Over)
(Numbers in Thousands)

1950's
Growth in Population = 11,516
Growth in Employment = 7,215

Growth: Employment to Population = 63%

1960's
Growth in Population = 19,449
Growth in Employment = 13,862

Growth: Employment to Population = 71%

1970's
Growth in Population = 30,811
Growth in Employment = 21,224

Growth: Employment to Population = 69%

1980's
Growth in Population = 20,865
Growth in Employment = 17,685

Growth: Employment to Population = 85%

1990's
Growth in Population = 21,667
Growth in Employment = 16,998

Growth: Employment to Population 78%

2000's
Growth in Population = 28,092
Growth in Employment = 3,257

Growth: Employment to Population = 12%

In the preceding table/graph we see that employment growth has fallen to 12% of population growth. The population growth includes all persons 16 and over, the following table excludes retirement age adults, showing only those age 16 to 64.

Employment Growth to Population Growth: by Decade (Age 16 through 64)
(Numbers in Thousands)

1950's
Growth in Population = 7,559
Growth in Employment = 7,117

Growth: Employment to Population = 94%

1960's
Growth in Population = 15,772
Growth in Employment = 13,817

Growth: Employment to Population = 88%

1970's
Growth in Population = 25,569
Growth in Employment = 21,291

Growth: Employment to Population = 83.3%

1980's
Growth in Population = 15,470
Growth in Employment = 17,335

Growth: Employment to Population = 112%

1990's
Growth in Population = 18,591
Growth in Employment = 16,366

Growth: Employment to Population 88%

2000's
Growth in Population = 22,268
Growth in Employment = 1,048

Growth: Employment to Population = 5%

Only 1 million of 3.2 million jobs were assumed by working age adults -- ages 16 to 64. This is one job for every twentytwo new entrants into to workforce. For those persons of retirement age, 65 and older, the employment picture was a little different.

Employment Growth to Population Growth: by Decade (Age 65 and Over)
(Numbers in Thousands)

1950's
Growth in Population = 3,957
Growth in Employment = 98

Growth: Employment to Population = 2%

1960's
Growth in Population = 3,677
Growth in Employment = 45

Growth: Employment to Population = 1%

1970's
Growth in Population = 5,242
Growth in Employment = (67)

Growth: Employment to Population = -1.3%

1980's
Growth in Population = 5,395
Growth in Employment = 350

Growth: Employment to Population = 6%

1990's
Growth in Population = 3,076
Growth in Employment = 632

Growth: Employment to Population 21%

2000's
Growth in Population = 5,824
Growth in Employment = 2,209

Growth: Employment to Population = 38%

From the data, there is no way to tell if the retirement age persons aged into this category in their current job, or re-entered the workforce.

In either case, shouldn't this trend in employment be represented in any and all talks about Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

(Note: A similar workup of pre-economic meltdown data located Here)

Let's end this blog with a quote:

"...we estimate that a total of almost 600,000 temporary visas authorizing employment were issued in 2008, including about 380,000 workers receiving one of the employment-based temporary visas primarily intended for work (H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, O, L)."
Aligning Temporary Immigration Visas With US Immigration Needs: The Case for a New System of Provisional Visas

Definition of a decade is Dec. 31, xxx9 to Dec. 31, xxx9
(The last day of the prior decade to the last day of the current decade)

Source:
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1948 to 2010

Series Id: LNU02000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1948 to 2010

Series Id: LNU00000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over
Years: 1948 to 2010

Series Id: LNU02000097
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 65 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 65 years and over
Years: 1948 to 2010