January’s Jobs/ Unemployment data has been greeted with euphoria by the Democratic Party/ Main Stream Media (to the extent that the two can be distinguished). Example:
Jobs jump: A 2012 game-changer?
By Alexander Burns and Ben White, Politico.com. February 3, 2010
President Barack Obama hasn’t unfurled a “Mission Accomplished” banner just yet.
But Friday’s jobs report showing unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent, the lowest level of his presidency, is an unexpected boon for Obama’s reelection bid and a serious hurdle for his top competitor, Mitt Romney, who has staked his campaign on a jobs-and-economy message.
January was indeed a “game changer”—but not in the way portrayed. The displacement of American workers by immigrants (and of all races by Hispanics) reached unprecedented levels.
U.S. companies hired 243,000 workers—the most in nine months. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 8.3% according to the government’s survey of employers—the lowest level in nearly three years. After months of better than expected gains, this surprised even the most cockeyed optimist.
But VDARE.com’s analysis starts with “other” employment survey, of households rather than businesses. The Household Survey is rarely headlined in the MSM. To do so would reveal inconvenient truths about the race, ethnicity, and nativity of new “American” workers.
According to the Household Survey, an astounding 847,000 jobs were added in January—the largest monthly gain in nine years.
That’s the good news. The not-so-good, or at least thought-provoking, news: an astonishing 96% of those jobs went to Hispanics—although they are only 15% of the workforce.
VDARE.com’s original American Worker Displacement Index, which we now call VDAWDI Classic, compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic job growth since January 2001 as a proxy for immigrant displacement of American workers. Just look at the January 2012 pop in Hispanic employment:
In January 2012:
In percentage terms, Hispanic employment grew 131 times faster than non-Hispanic employment. The brutal explanation: Hispanics, immigrant and native-born, are systematically more willing to work for less.
Hispanic employment is interesting, but of course it was just a proxy for our primary interest: the displacement of native-born workers by immigrants. Our analysis of the Household Survey indicates that 414,000, or 49%, of January’s new jobs went to immigrants. That is more than three times their share of the labor force (16%). Native-born employment grew by 433,000.
Immigrant employment grew by 1.83% in January. Native-born employment grew by 0.37%. At these rates, immigrant employment will double in just 39 months, while native-born employment will take 196 months to double. That’s 16 years.
Since January 2009—the month Barack Obama took office—data on foreign- and native-born employment has been included in the monthly employment report. Coincidence or not, this means we can piece together the monthly points to track the long-term impact of Mr. Obama’s policies.
To calculate our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI), we set native-born and immigrant employment when President Obama assumed office in January 2009 at 100 each. From that January to this January immigrant employment rose by 6.6%—pushing the immigrant employment index up to 106.6. Over the same period, native-born employment declined by 1.7%, reducing the native employment index to 98.3. We then take the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment indexes and multiply by 100.
Bottom line: the January 2012 NVDAWDI is 108.4—or 100 times 106.6 divided by 98.3.
NVDAWDI (the yellow line) spiked to an Obama-era record in January.
Resurgent American worker displacement is also confirmed by comparing the seasonally unadjusted figures for January 2011 and January 2012.
Employment Status by Nativity, Jan. 2011-Jan. 2012 | |||||
(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted) | |||||
Jan-11 | Jan-12 | Change | % Change | ||
Foreign born, 16 years and older | |||||
Civilian population | 36,294 | 37,593 | 1,299 | 3.6% | |
Civilian labor force | 24,517 | 25,156 | 639 | 2.6% | |
Participation rate (%) | 67.6% | 66.9% | -0.7% | -1.0% | |
Employed | 21,928 | 22,803 | 875 | 4.0% | |
Employment/population % | 60.4% | 60.7% | 0.3% | 0.5% | |
Unemployed | 2,589 | 2,353 | -236 | -9.1% | |
Unemployment rate (%) | 10.6% | 9.4% | -1.2% | -11.3% | |
Not in labor force | 11,777 | 12,437 | 660 | 5.6% | |
Native born, 16 years and older | |||||
Civilian population | 202,410 | 204,676 | 2,266 | 1.1% | |
Civilian labor force | 128,019 | 128,329 | 310 | 0.2% | |
Participation rate (%) | 63.2% | 62.7% | -0.5% | -0.8% | |
Employed | 115,671 | 117,141 | 1,470 | 1.3% | |
Employment/population % | 57.1% | 57.2% | 0.1% | 0.2% | |
Unemployed | 12,348 | 11,188 | -1,160 | -9.4% | |
Unemployment rate (%) | 9.6% | 8.7% | -0.9% | -9.4% | |
Not in labor force | 74,391 | 76,347 | 1,956 | 2.6% | |
Source: BLS, "The Employment Situation - January 2012," February 3, 2012. Table A-7. PDF | |||||
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.
