Since the start of the recession, 3 out of every 4 new jobs has gone to "foreign-born" workers

[randomname]

Since the start of the recession, 3 out of every 4 new jobs has gone to "foreign-born" workers

From http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...esenting-most-stunning-number-may-jobs-report

...the biggest surprise came from Table 7, where the BLS reveals the number of "foreign born workers" used in the Household survey. In May, this number increased to 25.098 million, the second highest in history, a monthly jump of 279K.



Assuming, the Household and Establishment surveys were congruent, this would mean that there was just 1K native-born workers added in May of the total 280K jobs added.

Alternatively, assuming the series, which is not seasonally adjusted, was indicative of seasonally adjusted data, then the 272K increase in total Household Survey civilian employment in May would imply a decline of 7K native-born workers offset by the increase of 279K "foreign borns."

But while all of these comparisons are apples to oranges, using the BLS' own Native-Born series, also presented on an unadjusted basis, we find the following stunner: since the start of the Second Great Depression, the US has added 2.3 million "foreign-born" workers, offset by just 727K "native-born".




This means that the "recovery" has almost entirely benefited foreign-born workers, to the tune fo 3 to 1 relative to native-born Americans!





How does the BLS determine a foreign-born worker? This is its definition:


The foreign born are persons who reside in the United States but who were born outside the country or one of its outlying areas to parents who were not U.S. citizens. The foreign born include legally-admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants. The survey data, however, do not separately identify the numbers of persons in these categories.

In other words, the "foreign-born" catogory includes both legal and illegal immigrants unfortunately, the BLS is unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between the two.

As a result, it may well be, that the surprise answer why America's labor productivity (which recently posted its worst 6 month stretch in 22 years) has plummeted in recent years and certainly months, confounding economists who are unable to explain why "solid" labor growth does not translate into just as solid GDP growth...




... and why wage growth has gone precisely nowhere, is because the vast majority of all jobs since December 2007, or 75% to be specific, have gone to foreign-born workers, a verifiable fact. What is unknown is how many of these millions of "foreign-born" jobs have gone to illegal immigrant who are perfectly willing to work hard, and yet whose wage bargaining power is absolutely nil (after all they are happy just to have a job) thereby leading to depressed wages for native-born workers in comparable jobs, resulting in wage growth which over the past 8 years has been non-existant.



Incidentally, this is the same lack of wage growth which has allowed the Fed to pump some $4 trillion into the stock market. Because far more than merely a domestic politics issues, the lack of wage growth and downstream inflation, is precisely what has permitted the Fed to maintain QE as long as it has.

In other words, how many illegal workers cross the US border, may be the biggest variable shaping US monetary polic at the moment! And, in thought-experiment land, the more porous US immigration policy the longer the Fed will be allowed to maintain its ZIRP/QE experiment, and the higher the S&P will rise.


Could it be that illegal immigration is the best friend of that 0.1% of the US population which has benefited exclusively from the Fed's relentless injection of liquidity into risk assets via either ZIRP of QE?

Note: this article is not meant to side on either side of the illegal immigration debate: the upcoming presidential elections will do enough of that. It merely seeks to fill a gaping hole in economist models which are unable to explain or rationalize why America's seemingly "booming" jobs recovery, which is "firing on all fours" according to the BLS, is not manifesting itself in either inflationary pressures, or broad economic productivity.

Source: Native-born workers; Foreign-born workers

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Because it's better to put Americans on the government teet than allow them to take those jobs. Then they will all vote for even more government. It's a win-win.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Let's see. According to the first chart there, if we start at the lowest point in the recession, the number of foreign born workers in the US was about 21 million. At the last point, it shows 25 million meaning foreign born workers took four million jobs. Out of how many?

This is a flash chart so see the link. Total non-farm payroll in the US. In 2009 (same starting point as above) at the lowest point, there were 129 million working. At the last point, it is 142 million- an increase of 13 million. Four million out of 13 million is not three out of four but less than one out of three (30% actually).

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS/

 

[Origanalist]

Because it's better to put Americans on the government teet than allow them to take those jobs. Then they will all vote for even more government. It's a win-win.

And it's pretty obvious that is the plan.

 

[juleswin]

This is because



If you believe this headline and the silly graphs accompanying it, then you are a "special" kind of person. How do you even go about planning this scheme without alerting the millions of HR personnel who are native born. Btw, I am not opposed to conspiracy theories, just silly ones like this.

WTF, 3 of 4 artists in the video I posted are foreign born, so maybe we are indeed taking over. All your good paying jobs are belong to us. Does the evil laugh

 

[randomname]

Let's see. According to the first chart there, if we start at the lowest point in the recession, the number of foreign born workers in the US was about 21 million. At the last point, it shows 25 million meaning foreign born workers took four million jobs. Out of how many?

This is a flash chart so see the link. Total non-farm payroll in the US. In 2009 (same starting point as above) at the lowest point, there were 129 million working. At the last point, it is 142 million- an increase of 13 million. Four million out of 13 million is not three out of four but less than one out of three (30% actually).

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS/

I don't think you're implying that any of the data in the article is wrong, just that they should have started counting all the way at the bottom, in March 09?

The problem is, that doesn't give a fair picture of job creation, and even then it'd still be 40% if we compare apples to apples, rather than "less than a third".

If you start counting in Dec 07 the increase in NFP is 3 Million rather than 13 Million.

 

[dannno]

How do you even go about planning this scheme without alerting the millions of HR personnel who are native born.

Most of the jobs that have been created have been government jobs, so I imagine it would be pretty easy for them.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I don't think you're implying that any of the data in the article is wrong, just that they should have started counting all the way at the bottom, in March 09?

The problem is, that doesn't give a fair picture of job creation, and even then it'd still be 40% if we compare apples to apples, rather than "less than a third".

If you start counting in Dec 07 the increase in NFP is 3 Million rather than 13 Million.

We were still losing jobs until 2009. Jobs weren't being created (in net) until that year- that is why it is a better starting point if you want to look at jobs created and who they went to.

In other words, how many illegal workers cross the US border, may be the biggest variable shaping US monetary polic at the moment! And, in thought-experiment land, the more porous US immigration policy the longer the Fed will be allowed to maintain its ZIRP/QE experiment, and the higher the S&P will rise.

Note: this article is not meant to side on either side of the illegal immigration debate:

I see. The article isn't about illegal aliens but it is about illegal aliens. (Even though it isn't- "foreign workers" are not necessarily in the country illegally). And if it is caused by illegal aliens, why has it happened while the number of illegal aliens has been going down- not up?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/...thorized-immigrants-stalls-may-have-reversed/

Other flaws:

Incidentally, this is the same lack of wage growth which has allowed the Fed to pump some $4 trillion into the stock market.

The Fed hasn't poured $4 trillion into the stock market. Two problems. One- they don't own any stocks. Second, QE has been about $2.5 trillion anyways- not $4 trillion.

Wage growth?

resulting in wage growth which over the past 8 years has been non-existant.

Wage growth has not been as high as before the recession but wages have been growing- as the chart in the OP shows. It shows pretty steady wage growth at about two percent a year and that growth rate has been slowly rising. If there is no wage growth, the line in this chart would be down at the bottom- that is where zero percent change in wages year on year would be:

It is a slanted piece cherry picking or even misrepresenting data to try to support their theory.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Probably just the only ones that will work that cheaply and not bitch too much about it.

 

[randomname]

Cherry picking, yes... Misrepresenting, I don't really see that.

Wage growth in real terms has been pretty much zero, which is unheard of in a supposed "recovery".

As to the Fed buying stocks (directly or indirectly), that's always an interesting "conspiracy theory", which that site does hint at it all the time, but can you really blame them? With the CME offering discounts to central banks for trading the E-mini and other central banks buying stocks in increasing size it wouldn't be surprising if the Fed did so secretly as well. The $4 trillion however was not referring to that, rather to this analysis by David Rosenberg.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wages are always the last thing to pick up in any recovery. They rise when demand for labor is stronger and companies have to pay more to attract enough qualified workers. We have improved but not enough to put a lot of pressure on wages (though wage growth has been starting to increase).

 

[randomname]

And Fed economists have 9 other possible excuses as to why wage growth is flat:

Nine Reasons Why Fed Economists Think Americans Aren’t Getting a Raise

The International Labor Organization however has another suggestion: global demand is still depressed (what recovery?), leading to less consumption, profits and investment (where the big job losses aren't helping, as more jobs means more spending which in turn means more profits and investment).

This ILO study studied the global jobs gap by comparing pre-crisis conditions to post-crisis conditions, quantifying the economic impact of subpar global demand:

Nearly eight years have passed since the first signs of crisis emerged in the global economy. Despite encouraging signs of recovery in 2010–11, the more recent period has seen global unemployment march higher, to an estimated 201 million in 2014…

At the global level, employment growth has stalled at a rate of around 1.4 per cent per year since 2011. This compares favourably with the crisis period (2008–10) when employment growth averaged just 0.9 per cent, but remains significantly below the 1.7 per cent annual rate achieved between 2000 and 2007…

The global jobs gap, which the ILO estimated by comparing pre-crisis trends in employment-to-population ratios (accounting for demographic change) with actual, observed trends since the onset of the crisis, stood at 61 million in 2014. That is, there were 61 million fewer people in employment globally in 2014 than there would have been had pre-crisis employment growth trends continued…

Looking at trends in employment elasticities over three historical periods (1991 to 1999, 1999 to 2007 and 2007 to 2014), the global employment intensity of growth has not varied significantly, declining slightly from an average of 0.35 during the period from 1991 to 1999 to 0.33 between 1999 and 2007, and then to 0.32 during the crisis and recovery period from 2007 to 2014.3 Thus, over these periods, each percentage point of global GDP growth has been associated with an increase in employment of between 0.32 and 0.35 per cent. Viewed in this context, the weak global employment performance during the post-crisis period has not been due to a marked decline in the employment intensity per se. Rather, weaker employment performance seems to reflect the fact that global economic growth has been far weaker than during the pre-crisis period…

A potentially key factor explaining the slow recent growth performance is a shortage in global aggregate demand. In particular, the growing disconnect between labour incomes and productivity may have affected private consumption and global demand, thereby also reducing private investment. A vicious circle may be at work, with lower demand affecting output and employment, thereby further depressing demand.

The global jobs gap corresponded to an estimated $1.218 trillion in lost wages around the world. This is equivalent to approximately 1.2 per cent of total annual global output and approximately 2 per cent of total global consumption.

What are the effects of this shortfall in wage incomes in terms of global GDP reduction? In the absence of the current global jobs gap, aggregate global wages in 2013 would have been $1.218 trillion above the actual, observed level. Because workers typically spend a significant share of wages earned, there are important multiplier effects to consider when estimating the impact of wages on overall GDP.

As a result of multiplier effects and the virtuous circle of increased wages, higher consumption, increased profits and investment levels resulting from closing the global jobs gap, an estimated $3.7 trillion would be added to global GDP – equivalent to a one-time, 3.6 per cent boost to global output.