June saw both employment surveys reach pretty much the same conclusion: Jobs are being created at rates that keep unemployment in the low 4 percent range. The difference between the 245,000-gain reported by the Household Survey and the 220,000 reported by the more-widely-cited Survey of Employers is statistically insignificant, given the random noise that bedevils monthly government surveys.
Note, however, that average wage gains remained anemic, up a mere 0.15% over May, dispelling the notion that there is a shortage of available labor and suggesting a strong immigrant impact.
Once again, the Household Survey data show that immigrants comprise most of the new employees:
Total employment rose 245,000, up by 0.16%
More than half—53%—of June’s job gains went to immigrants. By (sharp) contrast, during Trump’s first two months immigrants appeared to be retreating and native-born Americans surging into the job market. During February and March of this year native-born Americans gained 986,000 jobs while immigrants lost 67,000.)
So, for whatever reason, we have not yet decisively reversed the long-term Obama-Era trend. Foreign-born workers held 17.22% of all jobs in June—up from 17.14% in March. Thus June ties the Obama-era record for foreign-born share of total employment set in August 2016. In Trump’s first full month (February) immigrants held 16.95% of jobs.
Native-born American workers lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years, and this trend accelerated significantly in the months leading up to the election. This is brought out in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) graphic:
Native-born American employment growth is represented by the black line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born American job growth—is in yellow.
The index starts at 100.0 in January 2009 for both immigrants and native-born Americans, and tracks their employment growth since then.
From January 2009 through June 2017:
With the spring surge in immigrant employment, Trump’s brief tenure is also marked by American worker displacement. From January through June immigrant employment grew nearly three times faster than native-born employment: 1.48% versus 0.56%.
The foreign-born share of total U.S. employment rose steadily, albeit erratically, throughout the Obama years. It fell sharply in the months after the election, but roared back to Obama-era levels in the spring:
In February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office, 14.97% of all persons working in the U.S. were foreign-born. In his last full month, December 2016, 17.05% of workers were foreign-born. This implies that Obama-era immigration pushed as many as 3.16 million native-born Americans onto the unemployment rolls.
The immigrant share of employment in June 2017 (17.22%) was 0.17 percentage points above the share in December, Obama’s last full month. This implies that resistance to Trump’s immigration agenda may have put as many as 26,000 native-born Americans out of work.
In contrast, by early April, the mere threat of a Trump immigration crackdown appeared, by our estimates, to have put 168,000 native-born American workers back to work. This was actually quite plausible, given the early hysteria about Trump in the MSM. Some immigrants, legal and illegal, may have taken it seriously and decided to leave. Others, above all illegals, may have decided not to come after all. [Central Americans, ‘Scared of What’s Happening’ in U.S., Stay Put, By Kirk Semple, NYT, July 3, 2017]
But the atmospherics are more confused now, and the June’s employment situation may reflect that.
A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is available in the Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Nativity table published in the monthly BLS Report. [PDF]
|Employment Status by Nativity, June 2016-June 2017|
|(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted)|
|Foreign born, 16 years and older|
|Civilian labor force||26,936||27,540||604||2.24%|
|Participation rate (%)||65.6||66.3||0.7 %pts.||1.07%|
|Employment/population %||63.0||63.8||0.8 %pts.||1.27%|
|Unemployment rate (%)||4.0||3.7||-0.3 %pts.||-7.50%|
|Not in labor force||14,119||14,012||-107||-0.76%|
|Native born, 16 years and older|
|Civilian labor force||133,198||133,796||598||0.45%|
|Participation rate (%)||62.7||62.7||0.0 %pts.||0.00%|
|Employment/population %||59.4||59.8||0.4 %pts.||0.67%|
|Unemployment rate (%)||5.3||4.7||-0.6 %pts.||-11.32%|
|Not in labor force||79,144||79,609||465||0.59%|
|Source: BLS, The Employment Situation- June 2017, Table A-7, July 7, 2017.|
Over the last 12 months (June 2016 to June 2017):
|Change in Foreign-born population from same month prior year
(age 16+; in 1,000s; BLS data)
Still more good news: Immigrant working-age population growth in April, May, and June was below the 900,000-1 million figure commonly cited as the annual legal influx of all ages. Prior to the election immigrant workforce growth regularly exceeded estimated legal inflow, evidence of the surge of illegal immigration that occurred in Obama’s last year. The spring slowdown implies that the “Trump effect” is still alive, albeit attenuated.
Of course, the foreign-born are only the tip of the immigration iceberg. The true measure of post-1965 immigration impact on the labor market and population would include their U.S.-born children. My estimate: factoring in U.S.-born children virtually doubles (+ 80%) immigration’s depression of American wages.