View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Geographies of Intergenerational Immigrant Labour Markets
International Population Geographies ConferenceUniversity of Liverpool
19-21 June 2006
Jamie Goodwin-WhiteDivision of Social StatisticsSchool of Social SciencesUniversity of Southampton
Theoretical Background
Concern with how immigrants and their children are doing over time and across generations
Spatial dimensions of immigrant economic progress (Waldinger, Clark, Ellis, Zhou 2001)
Local contexts of labor market inequality (McCall 2001, Bound and Freeman 1992)
Questions
Does the geography of immigrants matter for estimating wages and wage gaps?
Is there a selectivity to internal migration that relates to wage outcomes? Is it different for immigrants and natives? How?
Models 1:Geographically Weighted Regression
Does the geography of immigrants matter for estimating wages and wage gaps?
How to weight population to account for different spatial distributions
Geo-weighted Regressions: Data and Methodology
25-64 year-old men from 5% PUMS
(currently employed, and with positive wages and hours data)
Split into immigrant Mexicans and native-born whites
Covariates and weights
Ln(hourly wage)
Age, education (+ fb interactions), married, years of experience (age-5-educ), arrival cohort (for fb)
Model iterations with 1) pweight and 2) mexweight
mexweight: proportion of fb mex (by metro) used to weight regression
Findings
Geoweighted models show:
1) higher wages for both groups
2) wage penalty to immigrants increases slightly
General models predicted logged hourly wage:
pweight mexweight
nbw 2.31 ($10.15) 2.40 ($10.98)
fbm -.18 ($8.51) -.21 ($8.94)
Additional findings: covariates
Significant and dramatic wage penalty to recent arrivals in geoweighted models
Additional findings: covariates
Significant and dramatic wage penalty to recent arrivals in geoweighted models
Significantly reduced wage penalty to those native whites with less than college education
Additional findings: covariates
Significant and dramatic wage penalty to recent arrivals in geoweighted models
Significantly reduced wage penalty to those native whites with less than college education
Large returns to BA increase sizably in geoweighted models - especially for immigrants
Summary:Distinctive Contexts of Immigrant Geographies
Does the geography of immigrants matter for estimating wages and wage gaps?
Yes, areas where immigrant (Mexicans) live are higher waged but more unequal
But much of this penalty is for recent arrivals
Payoffs to higher education, especially for immigrants - and fewer penalties for least-educated when recent arrivals taken into account
Models 2:Heckman Selectivity Models
Is there a selectivity to internal migration that relates to wage outcomes? Is it different for immigrants, their second generation adult children and natives? How?
In other words, are those who move likely to be those who expect to benefit from the move?
Models 2:Heckman Selectivity Models
Two-step models: Probit on instrumental variable migration
(moved at metro level last 5 years) Selectivity parameter (lambda or inverse mills
ratio) comes from taking unmeasured variance from this model and using as covariate in OLS wage model
Heckman Migration-Selectivity Models:Data and Methodology
25-54 year-old men from 2000 PUMS
(currently employed, and with near full-time full-year data)
Split into immigrants, natives, and 1.5 generation
Two-stage covariate selection
Wage models include:
race(white,black, asian,hispanic, other), age, education (BA), lambda
Migration models also include:
family size, new employment growth, and percent immigrant
Findings
Initial OLS: age, education, race generally work as expected. Immigrant Hispanics and native Blacks fare particularly
poorly. 1.5 Generation Hispanics, whites, Blacks fare better then native-born counterparts.
Wages have very slight negative relationship to move
Heckman selectivity-corrected models show strong positive selectivity effect of migration on wages
=0.42 (native-born), ~ =.20 (immigrants and 1.5 generation)
Changes due to migration selectivity controls
BA degree effect stronger still in Heckman models - underestimated without migration selectivity controls (especially for immigrants)
Much of penalty to being Hispanic ( for immigrants, and 1.5 generation only) abated by controlling for migration selectivity
=0.42 (native-born), ~ =.20 (immigrants and 1.5 generation)
Changes due to migration selectivity controls
BA degree effect stronger still in Heckman models - underestimated without migration selectivity controls (especially for immigrants)
Much of penalty to being Hispanic ( for immigrants, and 1.5 generation only) abated by controlling for migration selectivity
=0.42 (native-born), ~ =.20 (immigrants and 1.5 generation)
Immigrant concentration has slight negative effect on wages, but not for native-born
Summary
Is there a selectivity effect on how migration effects wages?
Yes - and a strongly significant one. It is stronger (more efficient for natives than the foreign-stock). Uncorrected wage regression models show negative bias to migration’s effect on wages.
Migration is a way in which immigrant and 1.5 generation Hispanics attenuate severe wage penalties relative to the native-born. Or not.
Strong payoffs to BA, especially for immigrants, indicate that internal migration could also be an intergenerational labor market strategy.
Conclusions
It is critical to understand immigrant and second generation geographies when assessing immigrant economic incorporation.
Internal migration and different group’s selectivity thereof is part and parcel of this.
Proximity to co-ethnics or other immigrants is only part of the equation on immigrants’ residential patterns and labor market outcomes - especially over time and for the second generation.