1919
DOI: 10.2307/2964889
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is the New Immigration More Unskilled than the Old?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0
1

Year Published

1994
1994
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These figures are quite close to the difference 24 The United States Immigration Commission report of 1911, as well as subsequent works by John Commons, Madison Grant, and Jeremiah Jenks and Jett Lauck, all took a negative view of the ability of new immigrants to integrate into the United States labor market (Hatton, 2000). However, Douglas (1919) found that 17.0% of new immigrants arriving between 1899 and 1902 were members of skilled or professional occupations, while only 12.2% of immigrants arriving between 1871 and 1882 (a time in which the old immigrants dominated inflows) were skilled or professional.…”
Section: Mobility Between Sectorssupporting
confidence: 52%
“…These figures are quite close to the difference 24 The United States Immigration Commission report of 1911, as well as subsequent works by John Commons, Madison Grant, and Jeremiah Jenks and Jett Lauck, all took a negative view of the ability of new immigrants to integrate into the United States labor market (Hatton, 2000). However, Douglas (1919) found that 17.0% of new immigrants arriving between 1899 and 1902 were members of skilled or professional occupations, while only 12.2% of immigrants arriving between 1871 and 1882 (a time in which the old immigrants dominated inflows) were skilled or professional.…”
Section: Mobility Between Sectorssupporting
confidence: 52%
“…If the immigrant who arrived in 1895 also earned $100 in 1920 while the immigrant who arrived in 1915 earned $50, the researcher could conclude that, upon arrival, migrants faced an earning penalty relative to natives that is completely erased after 25 years in the United States. However, this conclusion might mistake differential skills across arrival cohorts for true migrant assimilation; this point was first made by Douglas (1919) and was developed by Borjas (1985) 13 . If, for example, the long-standing migrant was a literate craftsman from Germany whereas the recent arrival was an unskilled common laborer from Italy, the difference in their earnings in 1920 may reflect permanent gaps in their skill levels rather than temporary gaps due to varying time spent in the United States.…”
Section: Inferring Immigrant Assimilation From Cross-sectional Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I restrict the analysis to working men aged 25-64 in 1910.4 1910 period were accompanied by substantial changes in the skill endowments of the immigrant flow (Douglas 1919). The perceived or actual economic and social impact of these changes became a central issue in the debate over immigration policy that culminated in the enactment of the national-origins quota system during the 1920s.…”
Section: The Great Migrationmentioning
confidence: 99%