Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Employment Among US Hispanics: a Tale of Three Generations

Abstract

Immigrants’ descendants typically assimilate toward mainstream social and economic outcomes across generations. Hispanics in the USA are a possible exception to this pattern. Although there is a growing literature on intergenerational progress, or lack thereof, in education and earnings among Hispanics, there is little research on employment differences across immigrant generations. Using data from 1996 to 2017, this study reveals considerable differences in Hispanics’ employment rates across immigrant generations. Hispanic immigrant men tend to have higher employment rates than non-Hispanic whites and second- and third-plus generation Hispanics. Hispanic immigrant women have much lower employment rates, but employment rates rise considerably in the second generation. Nonetheless, US-born Hispanic women are less likely to work than non-Hispanic white women. The evidence thus suggests segmented assimilation, in which the descendants of Hispanic immigrants have worse outcomes across generations. While relatively low education levels do not appear to hamper Hispanic immigrants’ employment, they play a key role in explaining low levels of employment among Hispanic immigrants’ descendants. Race and selective ethnic attrition may also contribute to some of the patterns uncovered here.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Studies of educational assimilation among Hispanics and/or Mexican Americans include Farley and Alba (2002), Grogger and Trejo (2002), Trejo (2003), Duncan et al. (2006), Blau and Kahn (2007), Telles and Ortiz (2008), Tran and Valdez (2017), and Duncan and Trejo (2018). This apparent lack of intergenerational progress in education after the second generation may be due in part to bias in who identifies as Hispanic (Duncan and Trejo 2011, 2017; Duncan et al. 2017). We discuss possible bias due to selective identification below.

  2. 2.

    There is also a literature on health assimilation among immigrants and their descendants that generally concludes Hispanics experience negative assimilation in health (e.g., Antecol and Bedard 2006; Giuntella 2017).

  3. 3.

    See the National Academies of Sciences (2015) for a summary of the data and evidence on both intragenerational and intergenerational integration of immigrants.

  4. 4.

    However, Jiménez et al. (2017) note that intermarried Hispanics are more likely to report their children as Hispanic now than their parents’ generation was 30 years ago.

  5. 5.

    The remainder are mostly from Spain or South America. The share of immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean who identify as Hispanic is also 88%. Most of the remainder of immigrants from those areas identify as non-Hispanic blacks and are from the Caribbean. We drop people with imputed Hispanic ethnicity or parental birthplace from our CPS sample. We weight observations using their person weight. The results are robust to limiting the sample to housing units in their first of eight waves of participation in the CPS.

  6. 6.

    About 84% of the second generation with a parent born in Mexico, Central America, or the Caribbean identifies as Hispanic. As with the first generation, much of the remainder identify as non-Hispanic blacks and have at least one parent born in the Caribbean.

  7. 7.

    Puerto Rico is a US territory, and its residents are US citizens at birth. About 30% of our sample of third-plus generation Hispanics is Puerto Rican.

  8. 8.

    For discussion of intergenerational assimilation in fertility among Hispanics, see Parrado and Morgan (2008).

  9. 9.

    We use pooled coefficients instead of coefficients for group A or group B because it is not clear whether the coefficients for either group are the “correct” coefficients. Neumark (1988), among others, discusses this issue and recommends using coefficients from a pooled regression to perform the decomposition.

  10. 10.

    Results are generally similar if we use probit models instead, with exceptions noted below. Online appendix tables show the probit decomposition results.

  11. 11.

    We compute the decomposition based on normalized effects so that the choice of the base category for each set of indicator variables does not affect the results, a problem noted by Oaxaca and Ransom (1999) and a solution proposed by Yun (2005). Appendix Tables 12 and 13 show the estimated coefficients with a base category omitted for each set of indicator variables; the estimated coefficients on the age and year fixed effects are not included to conserve space. Full results and Stata do files are available on request.

  12. 12.

    Online appendix tables show the detailed results for the education, marital status and kids, and unemployment rate variables in the Blinder-Oaxaca decompositions.

  13. 13.

    The portions of the gap due to differences in estimated coefficients are not statistically significant for second-generation Hispanic immigrant men if we instead estimate probit models.

  14. 14.

    However, Cutler et al. (2014) find that the duration of unemployment rose more for Hispanics as a whole than for other groups during the recession.

  15. 15.

    All results discussed but not shown in the tables, including descriptive statistics for subsamples, are available on request.

  16. 16.

    White, black, and mixed/other race Hispanics make up 93, 3, and 4%, respectively, of Hispanic immigrants; 92, 3, and 5% of the Hispanic second generation; and 90, 5, and 5% of the Hispanic third-plus generation in our CPS sample. For a discussion of racial identification among Hispanics, see Rodriguez (2000) and Pew Research Center (2015).

  17. 17.

    Until now, Puerto Ricans have been included in the third-plus generation since they are US citizens. In Table 5, “immigrants” from Puerto Rico is all Hispanics living in the US who were born in Puerto Rico; the second generation is Hispanics who have at least one parent born in Puerto Rico; and the third-plus generation is Hispanics born in the US whose ethnicity is reported as Puerto Rican with parents also born in the US Public school education in Puerto Rico is conducted in Spanish, potentially making Puerto Ricans quite different from other US-born Hispanics. The results for the third-plus generation in Tables 2 and 3 are robust to dropping Puerto Ricans from the sample, although the employment gaps relative to whites are about 2 percentage points smaller. The third-plus generation still has a significantly lower employment rate than the second generation (and than whites) when Puerto Ricans are dropped.

  18. 18.

    In addition to the total portion of the gap due to differences in means not being statistically significant, none of the portions (e.g., age, marital status and family structure, etc.) of the gap due to differences in means are statistically significant for men if we instead estimate probit models.

  19. 19.

    Studies using this immigration generation cohort approach (also sometimes termed “lagged birth cohorts”) include Farley and Alba (2002), Smith (2003), and Park and Myers (2010).

  20. 20.

    The decompositions include only the state unemployment rate as a measure of economic conditions. The time fixed effects are not included since the two generations are observed at different points in time.

  21. 21.

    In addition to the potential reasons offered here, second-generation Hispanics are concentrated in the 25–34 age range. The smaller sample sizes for older age groups contribute to the decline in statistical significance when making intergenerational comparisons for those groups.

  22. 22.

    We thank an anonymous referee for this point.

  23. 23.

    We thank Brian Duncan for sharing his program for identifying Hispanic immigrant generations in the NLSY97.

  24. 24.

    We weight the NLSY97 observations using the round 15 sampling cross-sectional weights to make the sample nationally representative.

  25. 25.

    If we limit our CPS sample to people ages 26 to 31 and the year 2011, we obtain results generally similar to those shown in Tables 2 and 3. The only notable difference is that the employment gap between second-generation Hispanics and whites is not statistically significant for men or women.

  26. 26.

    As with our CPS sample, we limit our NLSY97 samples of non-Hispanic whites and blacks to those who are US-born children of US-born parents (third-plus generation). The decompositions do not include time fixed effects in the measures of economic conditions since there is little time variation in the sample.

  27. 27.

    In addition, the relationship between education and employment widens the gap between second- and third-generation Hispanic women and whites, while it narrows the gap for third-generation Hispanic men. However, those results are not statistically significant if we instead estimate probit models.

  28. 28.

    About 40% of fourth-plus generation Hispanics in our NLSY97 sample appear to be Mexican American and 15% Puerto Rican.

  29. 29.

    For comparison, other research indicates that 97% of immigrant adults from Latin America or Spain identify themselves as Hispanic, compared with 92% of the second generation, 77% of the third generation, and only one half of the fourth-plus generation (Lopez et al. 2017).

References

  1. Alba R, Abdel-Hady D, Islam T, Marotz K. Downward assimilation and Mexican Americans: an examination of intergenerational advance and stagnation in educational attainment. In: Alba R, Waters MC, editors. The next generation: immigrant youth in a comparative perspective. New York: New York University Press; 2011. p. 95–109.

  2. Antecol H, Bedard K. Unhealthy assimilation: why do immigrants converge to American health status levels? Demography. 2006;43:337–60.

  3. Arce CH, Murguia E, Frisbie WP. Phenotype and life chances among Chicanos. Hisp J Behav Sci. 1987;9:19–32.

  4. Bean FD, Brown SK, Bachmeier JD. Parents without papers: the progress and pitfalls of Mexican American integration. Washington, DC: Russell Sage Foundation; 2015.

  5. Blau FD, Kahn LM. Gender and assimilation among Mexican Americans. In: Borjas GJ, editor. Mexican immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007. p. 57–106.

  6. Blau FD, Kahn LM, Papps KL. Gender, source country characteristics, and labor market assimilation among immigrants. Rev Econ Stat. 2011;93:43–58.

  7. Blau FD, Kahn LM, Liu AY, Papps KL. The transmission of women’s fertility, human capital, and work orientation across immigrant generations. J Popul Econ. 2013;26:405–35.

  8. Blinder AS. Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural variables. J Hum Resour. 1973;8:436–55.

  9. Borjas GJ. Assimilation, changes in cohort quality, and the earnings of immigrants. J Labor Econ. 1985;3:463–89.

  10. Chiswick BR. The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. J Polit Econ. 1978;86:897–921.

  11. Couch KA, Fairlie R, Xu H. Racial differences in labor market transitions and the Great Recession. In: Polachek SW, Tatsiramos K, editors. Transitions through the labor market: work, occupation, warnings and retirement. Bingley: Emerald Publishing; 2018. p. 1–54.

  12. Cutler H, Pena AA, Shields M. Hispanics and the Great Recession: differences in unemployment rate duration by ethnicity and race, 2003–2010. In: Verdugo RR, editor. Hispanics in the U.S. labor market. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing; 2014. p. 91–109.

  13. Duncan B, Trejo SJ. Tracking intergenerational progress for immigrant groups: the problem of ethnic attrition. Am Econ Rev. 2011;101:603–8.

  14. Duncan B, Trejo SJ. The complexity of immigrant generations: implications for assessing the socioeconomic integration of Hispanics and Asians. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2017;70:1146–75.

  15. Duncan B, Trejo SJ. Socioeconomic integration of U.S. immigrant groups over the long term: the second generation and beyond. NBER Working Paper 24394;2018.

  16. Duncan B, Hotz VJ, Trejo SJ. Hispanics in the U.S. labor market. In: Tienda M, Mitchell F, editors. Hispanics and the future of America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. p. 228–90.

  17. Duncan B, Grogger J, Leon AS, Trejo SJ. New evidence of generational progress for Mexican Americans. NBER Working Paper 24067; 2017.

  18. Farley R, Alba R. The new second generation in the United States. Int Migr Rev. 2002;36:669–701.

  19. Fry R, Lowell BL. The wage structure of Latino-origin groups across generations. Ind Relat. 2006;45:147–68.

  20. Gans HJ. Second generation decline: scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post-1965 American immigrants. Ethn Racial Stud. 1992;15:251–70.

  21. Giuntella O. Why does the health of Mexican immigrants deteriorate? New evidence from linked birth records. J Health Econ. 2017;54:1–16.

  22. Gonzalez-Barrera A. Mexican lawful immigrants among the least likely to become U.S. citizens. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2017.

  23. Gramlich J. Hispanics dropout rate hits new low, college enrollment at new high. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2017.

  24. Grogger J, Trejo SJ. Falling behind or moving up? The intergenerational progress of Mexican Americans. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California; 2002.

  25. Hersch J. Profiling the new immigrant worker: the effects of skin color and height. J Labor Econ. 2008;26:345–86.

  26. Jiménez TR, Park J, Pedroza J. The new third generation: post-1965 immigration and the next chapter in the long story of assimilation. Int Migr Rev. 2017;forthcoming.

  27. Livingston G, Kahn JR. An American dream unfulfilled: the limited mobility of Mexican Americans. Soc Sci Q. 2002;83:1003–12.

  28. Lopez MH, Gonzalez-Barrera A, López G. Hispanic identity fades across generations as immigrant connections fall away. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2017.

  29. National Academies of Sciences. In: Waters MC, Pineau MG, editors. The integration of immigrants into American society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.

  30. Neumark D. Employers’ discriminatory behavior and the estimation of wage discrimination. J Hum Resour. 1988;23:279–95.

  31. Oaxaca R. Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev. 1973;14:693–709.

  32. Oaxaca RL, Ransom MR. Identification in detailed wage decompositions. Rev Econ Stat. 1999;81:154–7.

  33. Orrenius PM, Zavodny M. Mexican immigrant employment outcomes over the business cycle. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc. 2010;100:316–20.

  34. Orrenius PM, Zavodny M. The impact of temporary protected status on immigrants’ labor market outcomes. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc. 2015;105:576–80.

  35. Park J, Myers D. Intergenerational mobility in the post-1965 immigration era: estimates by an immigrant generation cohort method. Demography. 2010;47:369–92.

  36. Parrado EA, Morgan SP. Intergenerational fertility among Hispanic women: new evidence of immigrant assimilation. Demography. 2008;45:651–71.

  37. Perlmann J. Italians then, Mexicans now: immigrant origins and second-generation progress, 1890 to 2000. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2005.

  38. Pew Research Center. Multiracial in America: proud, diverse and growing in numbers. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2015.

  39. Portes A, Zhou M. The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1993;530:74–96.

  40. Rodriguez CE. Changing race: Latinos, the Census, and the history of ethnicity. New York: New York University Press; 2000.

  41. Sisk B, Donato KM. Weathering the storm? The Great Recession and the employment transitions of low-skill male immigrant workers in the United States. Int Migr Rev. 2018;52:90–124.

  42. Smith JP. Assimilation across the Latino generations. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc. 2003;93:315–9.

  43. Smith JP. Immigrants and the labor market. J Labor Econ. 2006;24:203–33.

  44. Telles EE, Ortiz V. Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.

  45. Tran VC, Valdez NM. Second-generation decline or advantage? Latino assimilation in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Int Migr Rev. 2017;51:155–90.

  46. Trejo SJ. Why do Mexican Americans earn low wages? J Polit Econ. 1997;105:1235–68.

  47. Trejo SJ. Intergenerational progress of Mexican-origin workers in the U.S. labor market. J Hum Resour. 2003;38:468–89.

  48. Yun M. A simple solution to the identification problem in detailed wage decompositions. Econ Inq. 2005;43:766–72.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Marie Mora and participants at the Federal Reserve System’s Disparities in the Labor Market Conference and the 2018 Population Association of America conference as well as seminar participants at the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System.

Author information

Correspondence to Madeline Zavodny.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 171 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

Table 12 Determinants of employment for men, by race/ethnicity and immigrant generation
Table 13 Determinants of employment for women, by race/ethnicity and immigrant generation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orrenius, P.M., Zavodny, M. Employment Among US Hispanics: a Tale of Three Generations. J Econ Race Policy 2, 3–19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41996-018-0021-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hispanics
  • Immigrant generations
  • Assimilation
  • Employment gaps

JEL Classification

  • J11
  • J15
  • E24