To Be An American. Bill Ong Hing

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ rel="nofollow" href="#litres_trial_promo">²³

      The availability and use of low-wage immigrant workers in New York City raise the question of whether immigrants deserve credit for the viability of certain industries or whether better alternatives exist. Immigrants have been credited with the continued viability of the traditionally labor-intensive garment and printing industries, although capital improvements were possibly avoided, and some piecework projects reinstituted, as small business and production sites increased. Similarly, the Department of Labor credits immigrants with the vitality of full service, fresh food restaurants in New York. Without immigrant workers, the food industry in New York would have followed the trend in other regions toward domination by fast-food outlets.²⁴

      The New York City data (and that of Los Angeles, below) do raise concerns. First, the Latino concentration in manufacturing raises a question about the perpetuation of Latinos in this low-wage sector. Opportunities in other sectors may be limited if ethnic networks are limited, and few “role models” for other occupations are available. The second concern is over the concentration of African Americans in public sector employment. Reliance on that sector as a means for economic advancement may be shaky given government budgetary problems and consequent limited expansion of the public sector.

       c. Los Angeles

      Although one-third of its population is foreign-born and accounts for as much as 70 percent of the employment growth, immigration does not have a negative impact on job opportunities for native workers in Los Angeles either. However, new arrivals do have a slight adverse effect on earlier groups of immigrants. The group that may suffer from Mexican migration is the rest of the Latino labor force. Job growth in Mexican-dominated industries, such as manufacturing, was 25 percent less than the national average in the 1970s; Latino wage growth was 40 percent less. Latino immigrants in particular hold jobs in manufacturing (e.g., textile, apparel, and furniture).

      At the same time, African American job opportunities seemed to have expanded, particularly in the white-collar sector. As in New York, African Americans in Los Angeles have experienced noticeable employment gains in the public sector. Both African American teenagers and adults experienced a job rate increase larger than the national average through the early 1980s. Their wages increased faster than the state average, even in blue-collar work with large proportions of immigrants. Despite a concern over increased joblessness among young or less educated African Americans, the presence of immigrants increased the earnings and opportunities of African Americans who were employed.²⁵

      Thus, immigrants may create more jobs than they take in fields such as communications and utilities, but take more jobs than they create in manufacturing, retail trade, and restaurants in places like Los Angeles and New York. The effect is a “redistribution” of jobs for native workers away from manufacturing and lower-skilled services toward the white-collar sector, particularly in management and the professions. By 1993, almost a quarter of African Americans, but only one in ten Latinos working in Los Angeles held professional or managerial positions.²⁶

      Specific research on less skilled workers in the West provides a better understanding of the effect of less skilled immigrants on wages. By comparing wages among less skilled workers in other parts of the country, one finds that the increase of less skilled Latino and Asian immigrants in the West adversely affects the wages of natives. But through immigration, the West has maintained a steady supply of low-wage workers, which helps to explain why wages will not rise as much. In New England, for example, rising schooling levels has reduced the supply of unskilled workers over the past twenty years, which in turn raises wages among unskilled workers.²⁷

       d. Miami

      For almost four decades Cubans have migrated to Miami, creating what the Department of Labor terms a “premier example of the formation of ethnic enclaves.”²⁸ Cubans, however, are not a stereotypical group of low-wage immigrant workers. Through financial and social assistance from friends and families, about 20 percent of Cubans in Miami prior to 1980 were business managers or professionals. The ethnic enclave facilitated jobs and economic development for new arrivals, while those who ventured out of the enclave experienced lower earnings linked in part to language problems.

      In one study of the effect of the “Mariel Boatlift” on Miami (discussed more fully in chapter 7), economist David Card found that the influx of 125,000 new Cubans had no effect on the unemployment rates or wages of low-skilled native workers or earlier Cuban immigrants. He posited several explanations for his findings. The Marielitos may have discouraged other immigrants and natives from coming to Miami. For some twenty years prior to the boatlift, Miami had received thousands of Cuban émigrés, making Miami especially prepared for the influx. Miami’s strong textile and clothing industries could absorb additional unskilled labor. And the lack of English-speaking ability did not pose a hindrance to entry into Miami’s job market.²⁹

       e. Chicago

      Chicago constantly attracts new immigrants. Immigrants first came from northern Europe, and then later from eastern and southern Europe. In recent years, approximately 60,000 new immigrants—half from Mexico—have settled in this metropolitan area each year. Now the area is quite diverse. In 1990, Chicago was 19 percent African American, 10.9 percent Latino, and 3.1 percent Asian American.³⁰

      In general, studies of immigrants in Chicago have not found a negative labor market impact on native workers. Even a close look at undocumented workers did not disclose a subclass of exploited, nonunion workers.³¹ In an important study of the poverty and employment rates of African Americans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans in Chicago, Robert Aponte sheds light on the effect of immigrants. Assuming that most of the Mexicans were immigrants, he sought explanations for why they had lower poverty rates than Puerto Ricans and African Americans, and better employment rates than those groups as well as whites. Essentially he found that this success was achieved despite conventional predictors of poverty and unemployment (the fact that Mexicans were the group with the least competitive human capital attributes—i.e., education, English proficiency, skills, work experience—and the most limited access to automobiles for commuting), suggesting that there was little negative immigrant impact on the citizen groups.

      In terms of whether groups were mired in what Aponte called “secondary jobs” involving low wages, low skill requirements, and poor working conditions, he found that about half of the African Americans surveyed held secondary “black” jobs, and the same proportion of Mexicans had secondary “Mexican” jobs. This was consistent with one of the theoretical assumptions of segmentation theory, namely, that workers are allocated across relatively homogeneous segments of the labor market based on race, ethnicity, or gender. However, unlike African Americans, Mexicans were not “mired in prototypically ‘secondary’ jobs” especially when those without high school diplomas were compared. Median wages for Mexicans were about the same as for Puerto Ricans, but higher than for African Americans, contradicting the theory that Mexicans are favored by employers for their exploitable nature.

      In order to get a better sense of his findings, Aponte turned to other research for possible explanations. In a large survey of Chicago employers, “discriminatory predispositions” were examined, and immigrant workers—be they Mexican, Asian, or eastern European—were СКАЧАТЬ