Showing posts with label foreign born. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign born. Show all posts

Monday, January 13, 2014

The Immigrant Sheetrocker Effect

The street-level consequence of a 12.5% foreign-labor incursion into an unsophisticated labor market causes a 23.4% income loss for natives.
 
sheetrockers-2005 Hanging sheetrock (drywall) appears to be a job that anybody could do, until you actually try it.  The weight of 5/8 inch sheetrock is 2.3 lbs per square foot, or 110.4 lbs per 12 fo0t sheet.  Done properly, the ceiling is first, most rooms require full sheets, each sheet is balanced on your head while you and your partner struggle to get a few nails (requires both hands) into the sheet.  You can nail the sheet if the measurements are correct and the sheet did not get damaged in the process, in which case you start with a new sheet.  Many homeowners will try to save money doing their own sheetrock, but when they find out how proficient professional sheetrock crews are, and how little money they saved trying to do it themselves, most people never want to hang a piece of sheetrock again.

Sheetrock installers are very proficient and  there are hundreds of tricks of the trade.  “Rocking” is almost never an hourly job because the work is so strenuous, your arms are above you head much of the time, which is seriously painful until you get used to it.  Sheet-rockers take jobs on a per-foot basis to stay motivated and profit from their proficiency. There is generally a set minimum per foot price that is upheld throughout the regional market to ensure that this proficiency does not become a liability to himself and his vocation. 

There is an economic equilibrium that most construction markets will fall into, a certain amount of builders will require a certain amount of completions per year, roughly the same number of homeowners will do additions;  therefore, the demand for sheetrock hanging stays relatively static, unless the supply of sheet-rockers increases.  An increase in labor supply can be a hardship, but if the market rate is upheld, everyone adjusts their lifestyle accordingly and there is no hard feelings – it’s just a fact of life.

A problem occurs when there is an incursion of foreign-labor, generally illegal labor and therefore indentured, generally having complete disregard for the per-foot minimum status quo. Having no ties to the community, their only interest is improving life for themselves, bringing in more relatives to the US and “buying” into the market with lower per-foot prices.

Friday, September 13, 2013

STEM Crisis Myth


Three points of interest in this post.

A very good write-up on IEEE Spectrum, I hope they don’t mind that I’m using their image to encourage you to read their article.

The STEM Crisis Is a Myth

By Robert N. Charette
Posted 30 Aug 2013 | 19:28 GMT

 

“A Matter of Supply vs. Demand: Every year U.S. schools grant more STEM degrees than there are available jobs. When you factor in H-1B visa holders, existing STEM degree holders, and the like, it’s hard to make a case that there’s a STEM labor shortage.”

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth


09STEMeducation-1377102567732

 

Monday, March 5, 2012

Incredible Elasticity in US Science and Engineering Labor Force

In 2010, the Unemployment level for the Science and Engineering Labor force was 426,215.  The average Science and Engineering Labor Force growth was 26,627 yearly (2005 to 2010).  During the same period, the Foreign Born, Science & Engineering Labor force grew by an average of 31,245 per year.

In terms of California Unemployment Benefit levels ($450.00 wk), the preference for foreign professionals costs the various State and Federal Unemployment Agencies $731,133,000.00 per 52 week period. 

See the US S&E heat map from the Population Reference Bureau (Link)

Excel MSA Employment Charts used in this presentation with other Metro Areas available for download. (File > Download)

The American Community Survey(Census ACS) provides data on the Science and Engineering (S&E) Labor Force statics.  The Unemployment level data include the foreign and native born.  It is important to remember that the “Labor Force” consists of the Employed” plus the “Unemployed” when evaluating the information to follow.

I’ve created some charts that detail the characteristics of the S&E employment picture in the various Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA).  The first Chart is the Dallas/Fort Worth MSA, where Jennifer Wedel’s husband has had problem finding Semiconductor Engineering work for the last three years.

If you are not familiar with the Wedel family, you can watch her conversation with President Obama here.

 

 

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area

image

At first glance we see an S&E Unemployment rate that is fairly high for the Brightest and Best, but we also see a 4.1% increase in the Foreign born in the S&E Labor force for the Dallas Fort Worth MSA. 

The following chart shows that from 2008 to 2010, over 12,000 Native born S&E professionals lost employment, while more than 8,000 Foreign born professionals gained employment (2007 to 2010).

 image

Had these 8,000 jobs stayed with the Native born, the Unemployment Insurance liability for the Dallas Fort Worth MSA would have been for 4,000 professionals instead of 12,000 professionals.  Unemployment Insurance (in California) maximum is $450.00 per week, over the course of a year, benefits for 8,000 formerly well paid professionals would cost $18,720,000.00 to the Texas and Federal Unemployment system(s).

 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area

The New York MSA has the largest S&E Labor Force at 447,600

image

The Foreign born S&E share of the Labor Force only grew by 1% in the five years covered. The 6.5% Unemployment rate is rather high for a primarily college educated workforce.

 

image

In the Chart above, we see elasticity of 30,000 Native born professionals in the New York MSA. The increase in the employment of 30,000 for the Native born only decreased the Unemployment level by about 2,500 in 2006 (this is likely due to the hiring of new college graduates). 

It is interesting to note that the increase in Unemployment from 2008 to 20009, coincides with the decrease in the Employment level of the foreign born.  The drastic drop in employment of the Native born does not show a corresponding rise in Unemployment levels.

From 2009 forward, the 30,000 the newly hired Native born professionals have been dismissed.

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

 

image

In the Silicon Valley area, we see a 3% increase in the already very high Foreign born S&E Labor force.   Additionally, the 7.6%  Unemployment rate is disturbing for the center of the universe for all things technical.

  image

There does not appear to be the wildcat layoffs of Native born professionals, in the San Jose MSA.

The chart above seems to indicate that for every 15,000 Foreign born professionals that are hired, 3,000 jobs for Native born professionals are created.  The H-1B propaganda machine seems to have their ( “Each H-1B creates Five jobs”) statistics backwards. 

 

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area

This report wouldn’t be complete if the Microsoft Metropolitan Area wasn’t included.

image

 

The first thing I notice above is that the Foreign born S&E Labor force levels increased by 6.1%

 

image

In the above Chart, we clearly see the (Native born) labor elasticity of about 18,000 S&E professionals. It also appears that the 2008 recession only affected Native born professionals. 

The  (2005 to 2009) addition of Native born professionals only flattened the Unemployment level, but did not show a decline.  There is however, a rise in Unemployment levels that corresponds with the increasing level of Foreign born professionals.

There is also an odd two year offset in this chart between the commencement of Native born professionals (2005) and the hiring commencement of Foreign born professionals (2007).  It would appear that the Seattle MSA is benefiting from the stricter adjudication of H-1B visas over these past years.

In closing, the data suggests that there is more than adequate labor elasticity in the Native Born S&E Labor Force.  Knowingly or not, High Skill immigration allows US Employers to socialize employment costs onto the Unemployment Insurance System.

I would suggest that we modernize our State Unemployment Claims systems to require the inclusion of occupational titles, so that the need for business-related immigration can be electronically verified regionally.  Additionally, the Department of Labor’s occupational classification for H-1B visa should be updated to the modern NAICS-SOC, rather than the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which was last updated in 1991.

 

Source Data:

Census, Current Population Survey (CPS)

Downloaded from: Population Reference Bureau, March 4, 2012

Source: Population Reference Bureau analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) internal microdata files.

Definition: Scientists and engineers include people in computer science, engineering, architecture, life science, physical science, and social science occupations.

Notes: Data are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. A hyphen (-) indicates data are not available

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Radical Conservative Immigration Policy

“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.”

image

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.”

image

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. 

image

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.

image

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

Monday, January 2, 2012

Immigrant Founders -- The Rest of the Story

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 Employees10,314
Avg. Employees206.28
NumberPercent
Total Founders119100%
Foreign Born Founders 3932.8%
American Born Founders8067.2%
With a Foreign Born Founder
Number of Companies2346.0%
Number of Employees3,289 31.9%
Avg. Employees143.0
*H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)36211.0%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)23.09
**Avg. Year Founded2004.9
Without a Foreign Born Founder
Number of Companies2754.0%
Number of Employees7,025 68.1%
Avg. Employees260.2
***H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)445 6.3%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)27.56
**Avg. Year Founded2003.5
Without an American Born Founder
Number of Companies1020.0%
Number of Employees1,295 12.6%
Avg. Employees129.5
*H-1B Work Visa Applications (LCA)15411.9%
Avg. Ranking (1 to 50)25.70
**Avg. Year Founded2005.2
* (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).

FoundersForeign BornCompanies
Company LocationForeign Born U.S. Born AggregatePercent*Census EmployedNumber
CA315631 of 8735.6%34.9%36
CO010 of 10.0%1
GA101 of 1100.0%12.1%1
IL020 of 20.0%1
IN030 of 30.0%1
MA020 of 20.0%1
NC010 of 10.0%1
NJ303 of 3100.0%25.6%1
NY363 of 933.3%27.0%3
TX070 of 70.0%2
UT020 of 20.0%1
WA101 of 1100.0%14.3%1
Total398039 of 11932.8%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

RankNameLocationIndustryAll FoundersEmployeesYear FoundedImmigrant foundersH-1B LCA
1Castlight Health Inc.San FranciscoHealth CareGiovanni Colella, Todd Park1002008Giovanni Colella (Italy)4
2Xirrus Inc.Thousand Oaks, Calif.Information TechnologySteven DeGennaro, Dirk Gates, Patrick Parker17020030
3Xactly Corp.San Jose, Calif.Business and Financial ServicesChristopher Cabrera, Satish Palvai1402005Satish Palvai (India)13
4Recycle Rewards Inc.New YorkBusiness and Financial ServicesPatrick FitzGerald, Ron Gonen15020045
5ExteNet Systems Inc.Lisle, Ill.Information TechnologyRoss Manire, Eric Lekacz8620022
6Cyan Optics Inc.Petaluma, Calif.Information TechnologyMichael Hatfield, Rick Johnston, Steve West, Eric Clelland1022006Steve West (South Africa)16
7Aster Data Systems Inc.San Carlos, Calif.Information TechnologyTasso Argyros, Mayank Bawa, George Candea1022005Tasso Argyros (Greece) Mayank Bawa (India)55
8Glam Media Inc.Brisbane, Calif.Consumer ServicesSamir Arora, Rebecca Bogle Arora, Ernie Cicogna, Susan Kare, Dianna Mullins, Raj Narayan, Fernando Ruarte, Vic Zaud3002004Samir Arora (India) Raj Narayan (India)6
9Carrier IQ Inc.Mountain View, Calif.Information TechnologyBruce Lacey, Steve Roskowski75200516
10Imperva Inc.Redwood Shores, Calif.Information TechnologyMickey Boodaei, Shlomo Kramer, Amichai Shulman3502002Mickey Boodaei (Israel) Shlomo Kramer (Israel) Amichai Shulman (Israel)14
11Vidyo Inc.Hackensack, N.J.Information TechnologyAlex Eleftheriadis, Avery More, Ofer Shapiro1402005Ofer Shapiro (Israel) Alex Eleftheriadis (Greece) Avery More (Israel)22
12Etsy Inc.Brooklyn, N.Y.Consumer ServicesRobert Kalin, Chris Maguire, Haim Schoppik, Jared Tarbell1852005Haim Schoppik (Switzerland)1
13RGB Networks Inc.Sunnyvale, Calif.Information TechnologyEdward Krause, Peter Monta, Adam Tom1752003Edward Krause (Canada)37
14IronKey Inc.Sunnyvale, Calif.Information TechnologyDavid Jevans10020058
15Appia Inc.Durham, N.C.Information TechnologyJud Bowman512008214
16The Active Network Inc.San DiegoBusiness and Financial ServicesJames Woodman2,500199858
17Nimble Storage Inc.San Jose, Calif.Information TechnologyUmesh Maheshwari, Varun Mehta552008Umesh Maheshwari (India) Varun Mehta (India)7
18PatientSafe Solutions Inc.San DiegoHealth CareKim Rubin, David Swenson8020020
19Glaukos Corp.Laguna Hills, Calif.Health CareOlav Bergheim, Richard Hill, Morteza Gharib402001Olav Bergheim (Norway) Morteza Gharib (Iran)0
20Fusion-io Inc.Salt Lake CityInformation TechnologyDavid Flynn, Rick White37020064
21Achaogen Inc.South San Francisco, Calif.Health CareNathaniel David, J. Kevin Judice, Floyd Romesberg, Peter Schultz6420043
22NeuroPace Inc.Mountain View, Calif.Health CareRobert Fischell, David Fischell9019974
23Xoom Corp.San FranciscoBusiness and Financial ServicesAlan Braverman, Kevin Hartz70200119
24Workday Inc.Pleasanton, Calif.Business and Financial ServicesAneel Bhusri, David Duffield650200521
25SpiderCloud Wireless Inc.Santa Clara, Calif.Information TechnologyPeter Wexler60200820
26Jive Software Inc.Palo Alto, Calif.Information TechnologyBill Lynch, Matt Tucker33620016
27Federated Media PublishingSan FranciscoConsumer ServicesJohn Batelle16520052
28Boku Inc.San FranciscoBusiness and Financial ServicesMark Britto, Ron Hirson, Erich Ringewald652009Mark Britto (Singapore) Ron Hirson (South Africa)7
29Zoosk Inc.San FranciscoConsumer ServicesShayan Zadeh, Alexander Mehr802007Shayan Zadeh (Iran) Alexander Mehr (Iran)8
30EndoGastric Solutions Inc.Redmond, Wash.Health CareStefan Kraemer1202003Stefan Kraemer (Germany)0
31Chegg Inc.Santa Clara, Calif.Consumer ServicesAayush Phumbhra, Osman Rashid1502007Aayush Phumbhra (India) Osman Rashid (U.K.)34
32Everyday Health Inc.New YorkConsumer ServicesMichael Keriakos, Benjamin Wolin4002002Michael Keriakos (Canada)26
33Xsigo Systems Inc.San Jose, Calif.Business and Financial ServicesR.K. Anand, Ashok Krishnamurthi, S.K. Vinod1102004R.K. Anand (India) Ashok Krishnamurthi (India) S.K. Vinod (India)36
34Soasta Inc.Mountain View, Calif.Information TechnologyKenneth Gardner, Tom Lounibos10020063
35Rally Software Development Corp.Boulder, Colo.Information TechnologyRyan Martens24120022
36Prosper Marketplace Inc.San FranciscoBusiness and Financial ServicesChristian Larsen, John Witchel38200511
37Pivot3 Inc.HoustonInformation TechnologyRyan Callison, Lee Caswell, Bill Galloway, Alan Skidmore7820033
38Suniva Inc.Norcross, Ga.Energy and UtilitiesAjeet Rohatgi1902007Ajeet Rohatgi (India)4
39Veracyte Inc.South San Francisco, Calif.Health CareBonnie Anderson4020080
40ExactTarget Inc.IndianapolisBusiness and Financial ServicesChris Baggott, Scott Dorsey, Peter McCormick850200014
41OncoMed Pharmaceuticals Inc.Redwood City, Calif.Health CareMichael Clarke, Max Wicha7620045
42ExaGrid Systems Inc.Westborough, Mass.Information TechnologyJames Pownell, Dave Therrien14520021
43SeeSaw Networks Inc.San FranciscoBusiness and Financial ServicesPeter Bowen, Jeff Dickey, Rocky Gunderson, Scott Hines, Monte Zweben2020060
44Silver Peak Systems Inc.Santa Clara, Calif.Information TechnologyDavid Hughes1502004David Hughes (New Zealand)21
45Zilliant Inc.Austin, TexasInformation TechnologyAlex Chien, Deborah Vollmer Dahlke, Peter Zandan120199925
46Yammer Inc.San FranciscoBusiness and Financial ServicesAdam Pisoni, David Sacks10020085
47Bivio Networks Inc.Pleasanton, Calif.Information TechnologyJunaid Islam, Jeff Payne, Homayoun Valizadeh602000Junaid Islam (Canada) Homayoun Valizadeh (Australia)6
48TxVia Inc.New YorkBusiness and Financial ServicesCarl Ansley, Colin Fleming, Aaron Tay1502006Aaron Tay (New Zealand) Colin Fleming (New Zealand)27
49Service-now.com Inc.Del Mar, Calif.Information TechnologyFred Luddy30020032
50Aprius Inc.Sunnyvale, Calif.Information TechnologyMarc Epitaux, Peter Kirkpatrick, Jean-Marc Verdiell252007Marc Epitaux (Switzerland) Jean-Marc Verdiell (France)10

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

College Graduate Underutilization 20.2% (5.059 million Americans)

(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%)