"Immigrants Reduce Unionization in the United States"
New Cato Working Paper finds that immigration reduced union density by 5.7 percentage points between 1980 and 2020, which accounts for 29.7% of the overall decline in union density during that period.
We used the national skill cells method developed by Borjas (2003) to see how immigrants affected unionization in experience/education cells. Borjas used it to see how immigrants affected wages in those cells.
We also adapted a Social Customs Model of Union Formation from Naylor and Cripps (1993) to explain how a heterogenous population might diminish union formation.
Using data available on unionization in the experience/education cells going back to 1980, we found a substantial effect.
The impact of immigrants on union density is concentrated in private sector unions, especially for men. Women are affected too, but less so.
We didn't find statistically significant effects on public sector unionization.
To test our hypothesis about cultural heterogeneity potentially explaining this we adopt a fractionalization index that gauges the cultural differences of the workforce. The regressions are consistent with that.
A 1 percentage point increase in the immigrant share corresponds to a 0.479 percentage point decrease in the union density. Immigration reduced union density by 5.7 percentage points (1980-2020), which accounts for 29.7% of the overall decline in union density during that period.
I looked into this because this figure from my 2020 book with Ben Powell piqued my interest. Strongly inverse, but not a lot of great work on the issue.
Reminder: This is just a Working Paper, so please read it with a critical eye and let us know of any problems you find.
Are the methods correct for this type of analysis?
It’s been obvious to me that people yell “rule of law” when they like the laws and “freedom” when they don’t, both as justifications for their opinions and behaviors.
As a general principle, the “rule of law” is of little meaning without discussing the ACTUAL LAWS.
As always, think on the margin.
And both sides are frequently correct, depending on the laws.
The Buffalo Shooter was partly inspired to kill by a nativist conspiracy theory called The Great Replacement. TGR argues that Democrats are “importing” voters from abroad to undermine the GOP, Real Americans, White Americans, other groups, or a combination of the above. 🧵
First, Democrats haven’t passed any substantive immigration reform and they’re not going to. They prefer Obamacare-style reforms, financial reforms, or other silly priorities over immigration and always have (see BBB).
Second, the immigration reforms that do pass are always bipartisan. See the Immigration Act of 1965 that supposedly destroyed America and the GOP. cato.org/blog/bipartisa…
Rice is 1/2 correct. She's correct that an orderly system allows for broader reforms. She's wrong that more enforcement will produce order - it'll do the opposite.
This is the Catch-22 of immigration reform. Biden has to move first with a liberalization that will create order
Chaos will undermine support for immigration reform as it does for every other reform (drugs, alcohol, crime, etc.). People rightly want order when they view chaos, but their instinct on how to achieve order is via more central control. This is wrong almost all of the time.
The immigration system has too much central control. This simplified legal map of one part of the immigration system shows the problem. Add in the largest federal law enforcement agencies for enforcement and you still get chaos. The problem isn't enough officers, it's the rules.
He swallowed them both. Does the tooth fairy still visit him?
My wife says yes, I say no. What do you think?
How about this, he has to write a letter to the Tooth Fairy to explain what happened and then the TF visits.
Hey @GustavoArellano, do you recommend any readings on the Mexican tooth fairy? Do most Mexican Americans in California call it “Ratoncito Pérez” or “el Ratón de los Dientes”?
Why social conservatives decided to push abstractions like community, culture, and civil society rather than the transcendent and awesome feeling of being a parent is beyond me. Is there any portion of the political spectrum more incompetently manned than social conservatism?
I’m not religious and the non-religious people I know who have kids all agree that it is an incredible consciousness-altering experience more meaningful than anything else. This makes evolutionary psychology sense. Yet, social conservatives talk about boring civil society.
Perhaps they used to talk about the importance of children but then got duped by the Tocquevillian fiction that sitting in a Moose Lodge was awesome.