Question

A. In 2016 were foreign-born workers a bigger share of the U.S. labor force than in 2006? Explain, presenting and interpreting the relevant statistical evidence.

B. In 2016 who exhibited a higher labor force participation rate in the U.S., native- or foreign-born women? How does the evidence for 2016 compare with 2006, before the Great Recession? Present all relevant statistical evidence and interpret.

C. In 2016 who exhibited greater joblessness in the U.S., native- or foreign-born men? How does the evidence for 2016 compare with 2006, before the Great Recession? Present all relevant statistical evidence and interpret.

D. In 2016 who was more likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in the U.S., foreign- or native-born workers? Present and interpret relevant statistical evidence. Should you be “surprised” by your findings? Explain, using appropriate economic analysis.

Answer 1

A. Yes, the share of the foreign born workers increased in 2016 as compared to 2006. Thus, the share of the foreign born workers in the United States is increasing.In 2016, 16.9 per cent of the total labor force is foreign born which has increased over the past years.

B. The labor force participation rate of native women was more than the labor force participation rate of foreign born women in 2016 and the trend was same in 2006 also.53.4 per cent of the foreign born women were labor force participants, lower than 57.5 per cent for native born women in 2016.

C. Greater joblessness in both the years was seen in native workers of the United States . In 2016, the unemployment rate of foreign born workers was 4.3 per cent while unemployment rate for native born fell to 5 per cent,. Thus, it is more for native workers.

D. The data for both the years show that Native adults were more likely to have a high school education or higher but were no more likely than the foreign adults to hold an advanced degree.