Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (271661)	2/3/2006 2:19:18 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576273

Another interesting point is that a significant portion of the new jobs are going to illegals... vdare.com July 05, 2004 National Data, By Edwin S. Rubenstein Non-Citizens, Hispanics Get Most New American Jobs More than a million new jobs have been created in the U.S. so far this year. Despite the apparent end of the jobless recovery, President Bush’s economic approval rating among likely voters hasn’t budged. A recent analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center offers several possible explanations for the economic/political disconnect: 1. Non-voters Are Getting a Disproportionate Share of New Jobs. In the 12 months ended March 31st, the economy added a total of 1.33 million new jobs. (Table 1) During this period: Non-citizens, i.e. individuals ineligible to vote in U.S. elections, captured 378,500, or 28.5 percent, of all new jobs Job growth among non-citizens (3.3 percent) was more than four-times that of citizens (0.8 percent) In swing states, non-citizens account for 6 percent of total employment, but 21.8 percent of all new jobs created All in all, the share of new jobs garnered by non-citizens (28.5 percent) was three-times their share of the U.S. labor force (8.6 percent.) 2. Hispanics dominate the new job market. For a Republican, George W. Bush does fairly well with Hispanic voters (that is. merely terrible rather than utterly catastrophic). But his 31 percent share of the Latino vote in 2000 merely reinforces this reality: the Republican Party is fundamentally a white party. [See the analysis of demographics and political destiny by Peter Brimelow and myself: With this in mind, the ethnic distribution of new jobs created over the past year does not bode well for Republican prospects: (Table 2.) More than half – 53 percent – of all new jobs created in the last 12 months went to Hispanics Virtually all Hispanic job growth was among newly arrived (2000 or later) immigrants Native-born Hispanics and pre-2000 Hispanic immigrant cohorts lost a combined 43,526 jobs The last point is especially troubling for Republicans. This segment of the Hispanic population is: a) the most likely to vote, and b) the most likely to contain the acculturated, conservative Hispanics who voted for George Bush in 2000. 3. Real wages have stagnated for Hispanics and Non-Hispanics alike. (Table 3) Over the 2-year period ending in the first quarter of 2004: Real median weekly wages for Hispanic workers fell from $403 to $395, down by 2.0 percent Real median wage for non-Hispanic whites fell from $597 to $593, down by 0.7 percent The real median wage for non-Hispanic Blacks fell from $477 to $474, down by 0.6 percent What we see here is predictable: employers are shifting to newly arrived, often illegal, Hispanic immigrants who are willing to work for less than legal immigrants and natives. The newly arrived immigrants depress wages for all racial groups, especially those they compete most directly with, i.e., other Hispanics. This, of course, is exactly what Harvard economist (and Cuban immigrant) George Borjas has predicted. Now it’s happening.

To: combjelly who wrote (271661)	2/3/2006 4:24:05 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576273

CJ, So that means we had about 1.1 million net new jobs between March 2001 and November 2005. That works out to be about 20,000 new jobs a month, on the average. You're taking two different data points with nebulous bases for reference. Let's stick to the EPI link you provided: Every month that payroll jobs grow by fewer than 137,000, the jobs gap widens. In the past six months, job growth has averaged only 61,000, with February 2004 showing a gain of just 21,000 new jobs (see JobWatch.org for a complete analysis of the February employment numbers). As a result, the jobs gap keeps widening. That figure of 61K is well above your table napkin calculation of 20K. But even that, according to EPI, wouldn't cover the "job gap." Yet consider the latest article from EPI: epi.org The decline in unemployment was accompanied by increases in employment rates for some groups, particularly Hispanic workers (up one percentage point), and high-school dropouts, up 0.8 points. While monthly changes in this value can be unstable, over the past year, employment rates are up half a point over all, 0.9 points for African Americans, 1.7 points for Hispanics, and 1.3 points for high-school dropouts, a sign that the tightening job market is reaching less-advantaged workers. You can't tell me that "employment rates" count those who are unemployed but not actively seeking work as "employed." Tenchusatsu