(The Payroll Survey once again reported less growth. This systematic difference baffles Wall Street economists. We argue it reflects illegal immigration, which of course they never consider.)
The Household Survey, unlike the Payroll Survey, reports ethnicity. More than half of those new jobs created in March went to Hispanics. Hispanics account for just 13.1% of total employment—but they received 60% of the new jobs.
The Hispanic unemployment rate fell by 0.7 percent in March. White unemployment fell by 0.2 percent.
Because so many Hispanics are immigrants and the children of immigrants, Hispanic employment is the best proxy we have for the impact of immigration on employment. The ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic employment growth is a strong indication of how immigrants have fared relative to native-born workers in a particular month.
In this case, an even more dramatic story lies behind the numbers. White unemployment fell in part because a smaller fraction of the white population was in the labor force, i.e., either working or looking for work, in March.
Hispanic unemployment rates fell despite the fact that a larger share of the Hispanic population was in the labor force that month.
March is an extreme case. Rarely have the job experiences of Hispanics and non-Hispanics departed so radically.
From the start of the Bush Administration in January 2001 through March 2005:
The graph demonstrates the situation starkly. The black line is Hispanic job growth; pink is non-Hispanic; and yellow the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic (VDAWDI.)
VDAWDI—the ratio of Hispanic to non-Hispanic job indexes—rose to 114.0 (=114.3/100.3) in March, up from a revised 112.8 in February.
Maybe Bush is trying to tell us something?