Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest

8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest

1/28

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 397

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

ac we u s n . x or , an a en, e oc o o ca uar er y - ac we u s n . Segmente Assm atonZuema Va ez

*Please direct all correspondence to Zulema Valdez, Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, 4351TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4351; e-mail: [email protected]

SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION AMONG

MEXICANS IN THE SOUTHWEST

Zulema Valdez*

Texas A&M University

This article examines segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans.

Using the 2000 census, this article investigates how immigrants length of residence in the

United States and nativity affect the earnings and self-employment outcomes of low- and high-

skilled Mexican men and women in the Southwest. Findings reveal that the earnings of low-

skilled, foreign-born Mexicans decrease as immigrants reside in the United States longer and

are generally lower among the U.S. born than the foreign born. In contrast, the earnings of high-skilled, foreign-born Mexicans increase as immigrants reside in the United States longer and are

generally higher among U.S.-born Mexicans than foreign-born Mexicans. Moreover, self-

employment participation decreases as immigrants reside in the United States longer and is lower

among the U.S. born than the foreign born, regardless of skill. Since self-employment results in

lower earnings, a decline in self-employment indicates economic progress. Furthermore, men are

generally better off than women. Drawing from segmented assimilation theory, findings support

the downward assimilation hypothesis among low-skilled Mexicans and the Anglo-conformity

hypothesis among high-skilled Mexicans. Overall, this research provides evidence of intragroup

differences in segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans in the

Southwest.

Socioeconomic assimilation refers to the gradual process of incorporation, as immigrants

and their descendants integrate into the United States economy (Myrdal 1944; Park 1950;

Warner and Srole 1945; Lieberson 1963; Gordon 1964; Alba 1990; Waters 1990; Gans

1992). Classic assimilation theory, specifically that of Anglo-conformity, predicts a grad-

ual convergence to the socioeconomic outcomes of middle-class, non-Hispanic whites

(Lieberson 1963:8; Gordon 1964:74; Gans 1992:174; Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Yet, this

upwardly mobile path is not guaranteed. Contemporary research on immigrant adapta-

tion observes a mismatch between the assumptions of classic assimilation theory and the

empirical reality of newer non-European ethnic and racial groups (Borjas 1990; Portesand Rumbaut 1990; Glazer 1993; Portes and Zhou 1993; Alba and Nee 1997; Zhou 1997;

Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, and Waters 2004:394). Rather than a pattern of gradual conver-

gence to the white middle class, some ethnic and racial groups proceed in the opposite

direction, toward permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass (Portes and

Rumbaut 2001:82)what has been coined downward assimilation (Model 1991;

Portes and Zhou 1993; Butcher 1994; Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994; Zhou 1997;


2/28

398

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Segmented Assimilation

Zulema Valdez

Portes and Rumbaut 2001). For example, Kalmijn (1996) finds that Spanish- and French-

speaking Caribbean immigrants experience a decline in their socioeconomic outcomes

that eventually reflect those of the U.S.-born black population.

Recent studies on Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation observe two contradictorytrends. The first reveals a trend toward declining socioeconomic outcomes. This research

shows that Mexicans socioeconomic development is arrested (Schoeni 1997), on the

decline (Morales and Bonilla 1993; Ortiz 1996), and may reflect a pattern of downward

assimilation (Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). A second

trend suggests that Mexicans are making economic progress; although disadvantaged,

this group remains distinct from the underclass (Moore and Pinderhughes 1993;

Waldinger and Feliciano 2004).

This article expands upon previous research by examining Mexicans segmented

assimilation. Using the 2000 census, this study investigates how immigrants length of

residence in the United States and nativity affect socioeconomic assimilation, as mea-sured by workers earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment earn-

ings. Assimilation takes place over time and generations; therefore, this investigation

attempts to capture assimilation in progress by conducting an analysis of the socioeco-

nomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-

born Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Furthermore, since differences

in Mexicans economic incorporation are rooted in gender (Xu and Leffler 1992;

Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Schoeni 1998) and skill-level (Enchautegui 1998), I conduct

separate analyses by these factors to expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic

assimilation.This research uses one common measure of socioeconomic attainmentworkers

hourly earningsand further develops this concept to include self-employment partici-

pation and self-employment earnings (as two additional measures). Self-employment

participation is associated with economic mobility among entrepreneurial ethnic

groups, such as Cubans and Koreans (Portes and Bach 1985; Light and Bonacich 1988;

Waldinger et al. 1990; Rath 2000; Lee 2002). However, since Mexican self-employment

participation is negligible, it is often overlooked (Raijman and Tienda 2000:783).

Whether this economic activity contributes to Mexicans economic progress is unclear.

Thus, this research expands the scope of socioeconomic status beyond workers outcomes

only and contributes to the ethnic entrepreneurship literature by examining this under-studied group.

The question of Mexican socioeconomic assimilation is important to the U.S. econ-

omy in general and the Mexican community in particular, since the Mexican population

is large and growing. Recent census figures show that Mexicans, the largest Hispanic

group in the United States, increased their numbers by 52.9 percent from 1990 to 2000

(from 13.5 to 20.6 million) (Guzman 2001). Although migration patterns are increasingly

expanding across the United States, three-fourths of the Mexican population remains

concentrated in the Southwest (Guzman 2001).

1

This research focuses on the Southwest

for two reasons. First, the Southwest contains a large and diverse Mexican population

spanning time and generations. As such, the Southwest provides the most diverse


3/28

Zulema Valdez



399

Mexican-origin population in the United States from which to assess variation in hourly

earnings across length of residence, nativity, gender, and skill level. Second, the Southwest

is a geographically concentrated area of immigrant and ethnic settlement, a necessary

ingredient for the formation of ethnic economies and ethnic entrepreneurs (Wilson andPortes 1980; Wilson and Martin 1982; Portes and Bach 1985:343; Logan et al. 1994:694).

Since self-employed Mexicans constitute a small subgroup of the Mexican-origin popu-

lation, the Southwest provides a large, ethnically concentrated, geographic region from

which to draw a sufficient number of self-employed Mexicans for analysis.

SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION

Segmented assimilation attempts to explain destinies of convergence and divergence

(Zhou 1997:984) among todays ethnic and racial minority groups (Alba and Nee 1997;

Zhou 1997, 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Kasinitz et al. 2004:395). Segmented assim-ilation theory offers two hypotheses to explain Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation:

downward assimilation and Anglo-conformity.

2

The downward assimilation hypothesis suggests that individual and group disadvan-

tages combine with a negative context of reception, which results in a downward trend in

socioeconomic outcomes. On average, Mexicans are a disadvantaged group, as they

possess limited human capital (education and work experience) and English skills

(Borjas 1985, 1990; Borjas and Tienda 1993; Phillips and Massey 1999; Portes and

Rumbaut 2001). Portes and Rumbaut (2001:282) argue that such deficiencies are repro-

duced over time, as Mexican immigrants and their descendants acculturate into the U.S.economy and society. For example, they observe a decline in educational attainment as

foreign-born Mexicans reside in the United States longer, and they note that U.S.-born

Mexicans dropout rates are higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts (chaps.

8 and 9). Similarly, Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler (1994:678) characterize Mexicans as

a highly homogenous and vulnerable group whose declining educational attainment

and skills constitute downward assimilation. Furthermore, research on wage inequality

demonstrates that the wage gap between Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites is partially

explained by human capital differences. Low human capital relegates Mexicans to low-

wage, low-skilled occupations with limited opportunities for advancement (Schoeni

1997). Such occupations maintain wage discrepancies over time and in some instancesincrease the wage gap (Schoeni 1997; Enchautegui 1998).

A negative context of reception also contributes to Mexicans socioeconomic decline.

Nativist policies, a demand for low-wage, low-skilled labor, citizenship status, and poor

returns on human capital combine to ensure Mexicans weak economic performance

(Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Sanders and Nee 1996). In particular, legal status affects labor

market outcomes. Undocumented immigrants face greater hardships in employment

and wages (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002) and are more likely to face exploitation and

discrimination than permanent legal residents or naturalized citizens (Donato, Durand,

and Massey 1992). Moreover, a continued climate of hostility against Mexican

immigration (Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994:681) leads to persistent


4/28

400



Zulema Valdez

discrimination that affects their economic development. Purveyors of the downward

assimilation hypothesis conclude that human capital constraints coupled with an

unfavorable context of reception hinders economic progress. Under these conditions,

Mexican immigrants and their descendants may not improve their economic conditionsover time; what is more, they may experience downward assimilation.

In contrast to the downward assimilation perspective, the Anglo-conformity hypoth-

esis posits that assimilating into a mainstream American (white) middle class culture

(Kasinitz et al. 2004:395) provides an opportunity for upward mobility. Historically,

southern central Europeans, such as Germans, followed this path (Glazer and Moynihan

1963:313); today, eastern European Jews are following in their footsteps (Alba and Nee

1997:836). As Kasinitz et al. (2004) conclude, we now know that those with European-

born grandparents or even more distant European ancestors did assimilate, even as they

reshaped that mainstream and created new meanings for their ethnic ancestries (p. 394).

Similarly, Alba and Nee (2003) argue that existing immigration policy and civil rights leg-islation allow contemporary immigrant groups from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to

assimilate into and remake the mainstream. Accordingly, although evidence reveals a

downward trend in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes (Tienda and Wilson 1992;

Tienda and Singer 1995; Schoeni 1997), research also demonstrates economic progress.

In comparing joblessness among Mexicans, non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Puerto

Ricans, Waldinger and Feliciano (2003) find that Mexicans are closer to non-Hispanic

whites in their rates of joblessness than blacks or Puerto Ricans, groups perceived to expe-

rience downward assimilation. Consequently, they argue that Mexicans are moving

ahead (Waldinger and Feliciano 2004:29). Allensworth (1997) also reveals uniform evi-dence of Mexicans economic advancement. He finds that as foreign-born Mexicans

reside in the United States longer, their earnings increase and eventually reach parity with

those of their U.S.-born counterparts (although earnings do not converge with those of

U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites). Smiths (2003) findings are more optimistic, as he con-

cludes, Each new Latino generation not only has higher incomes than their forefathers,

but their economic status converged toward the white men with whom they competed

(p. 319). Hence, although disadvantaged, these studies find evidence of Anglo-

conformity among Mexicans.

Overall, such convincing and contradictory evidence suggests that two divergent

trends explain the Mexican case. Whereas some Mexicans experience a decline in socio-economic outcomes, others experience improvement. To illustrate, Zhou (2001) main-

tains that on some measures, such as education, Mexicans continue to lag behind other

ethnic groups, but on others, such as gainful employment, Mexicans fare better (Zhou

2001:203). Additionally, Rodriguez (1993) concedes that a majority of Mexicans in the

Southwest face high rates of joblessness, poverty, and crime; yet, he also observes a vibrant

and thriving Mexican ethnic economy. Similarly, Valdez (1993) suggests that in high-

crime, high-poverty Southwest border towns, social mobility is possible for a small pro-

portion of Mexican Americans whose class interests often conflict with a majority of this

population (p. 173). Camarillo and Bonilla (2001) echo this sentiment, and conclude

that tens of thousands of second- and third-generation Mexican Americans . . . seem to


5/28

Zulema Valdez



401

be following a stair-step rise in status, while others remain trapped as a class of severely

impoverished people living in urban barrios

. . . . The Hispanic underclass (p. 131). Ulti-

mately, it is likely that Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation patterns are segmented,

with signs of group progress matched by signs of decline and stagnation (p. 104).In this article, I investigate how these two divergent patterns of segmented assimila-

tion affect Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes, as measured by workers earnings, self-

employment participation and self-employment earnings. Since assimilation is a gradual

process, I compare the socioeconomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of

residence increases) and U.S.-born Mexicans to those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites.

In addition, I conduct separate analyses by gender and skill-level since these factors

have been shown to affect the economic incorporation of women and ethnic and racial

minority groups. For example, gender discrimination in the workplace decreases

womens wages relative to men (Xu and Leffler 1992). Furthermore, low-skilled workers

face greater hardships and disadvantages in the U.S. economy. To illustrate, Enchautegui(1998) finds that the wages of low-skilled workers are on the decline and further notes

that low-skilled, foreign-born workers are more likely to face poverty than the U.S.-born

(p. 812). Hence, I consider gender and skill level to expose divergent trends in Mexicans

socioeconomic assimilation, which may inform patterns of segmented assimilation.

Below, I briefly summarize each hypothesis of segmented assimilation theory as it applies

to the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans and draw out the empirical implications of

each.

EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS

The downward assimilation hypothesis posits that Mexicans will experience a decline in

socioeconomic outcomes as they integrate into permanent poverty and assimilation into

the underclass (Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Thus, as foreign-born Mexicans reside in the

United States longer, their socioeconomic outcomes will not improve and may even

decline. Furthermore, U.S.-born Mexicans will not outperform their foreign-born coun-

terparts, nor will their socioeconomic outcomes converge with those of U.S.-born, non-

Hispanic whites.

3

Finally, if skill-level affects economic integration, its consideration may

expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes. Specifically, low-skilled

Mexicans may lag behind high-skilled Mexicans and experience downward assimilation.The second hypothesis maintains a classic notion of Anglo-conformity and eventual

integration into the white middle class (Warner and Srole 1945; Gans 1992:175; Portes

and Zhou 1993:82). Specifically, a gradual increase in foreign-born Mexicans socioeco-

nomic outcomes will be observed as they reside in the U.S. longer. Moreover, U.S.-born

Mexicans will outperform their foreign-born counterparts (although the socioeconomic

outcomes of U.S.-born Mexicans may lag behind those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic

whites). Furthermore, if skill-level exposes divergent trends, then high-skilled Mexicans

will outperform low-skilled Mexicans. Last, although men and women may experience

similar trends in segmented assimilation rooted in skill-level, womens socioeconomic

outcomes may trail those of men.


6/28

402



Zulema Valdez

DATA

This analysis is based on the 5 percent sample of the 2000 census (Integrated Public Use

Microdata Series [IPUMS]). The sample is drawn from working-age (25 to 64 years old),

U.S.-born, non-Hispanic white, U.S.-born Mexican and foreign-born Mexican men andwomen who live in the Southwest (N =

845,122). The Southwest includes Arizona, Cal-

ifornia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. I identify Mexicans using the census questions

on race and Hispanic origin. Mexicans are those who report their race as non-Hispanic

white and/or other race (Hispanic origin or Spanish write-in) in response to the race

question and Mexican in response to the Hispanic origin question.

4

Foreign-born and

U.S.-born status is determined using the census questions on ancestry and country of

birth. The foreign-born Mexicans are further classified by length of residence. Length of

residence is defined categorically using the census variable, year of immigration. In the

2000 census, year of immigration refers to the year that the respondent came to live in theUnited States (Ruggles et al. 2003).

5

Recent immigrants are those who arrived between

1990 and 2000 (10 years or less). Intermediate residents are those who immigrated

between 1980 and 1989 (11 to 20 years). Long-term residents are those who immigrated

before 1980 (21 years or more).

Some research cautions that using a single cross section of data to predict self-

employment participation (Borjas 1986:490) and earnings (Borjas 1985:467) over time

assumes that the quality of different immigrant cohorts is constant, which leads to

biased results. Regarding the Mexican-origin population, however, this assumption is

reasonable given that Mexico has been one of the top sending countries of legaland

undocumented

immigration since the 1960s. Legal immigrants tend to have higher skills,education, and English proficiency, while undocumented immigrants tend to have lower

skills, education, and English proficiency. Since the composition of this group includes

both legal and undocumented immigrants in large numbers (Fix and Passel 1994:2935),

the quality of this group is arguably stable over time.

The sample is further separated by gender and skill, the latter measured by Duncans

socioeconomic index of occupations (SEI), which classifies occupations based on educa-

tion and income (Duncan 1961; Ruggles et al. 2003). I define low-skilled persons as those

whose occupations fall in the bottom one-third of the SEI scale (lower skill and lower

wage); high-skilled persons are those whose occupations are found in the top one-third

of the SEI scale (higher skill and higher wage). Those who fall in the middle (approxi-

mately 40 percent of the original sample) are dropped from this analysis for a total of

507,855 persons. By using the SEI scale of occupations to classify respondents, economic

returns are more closely aligned with actual labor market experience and prospects.

Socioeconomic Status

I use three indicators of socioeconomic status: hourly earnings, self-employment partici-

pation, and self-employment earnings. I measure hourly earnings using the census

variables total personal earned income, which includes earnings from wages and salaries,

hours usually worked, and number of weeks worked among persons who identify as an


7/28

Zulema Valdez



403

employee (as someone who works for someone else). Because earnings vary at the

extremes, I use logged earnings in the analysis. Self-employment is defined using the cen-

sus variable, class of worker. Although self-employment encompasses a wide range of

activities, the majority of the self-employed (approximately 80 percent) are small busi-ness owners who work on their own account, hire one or no employees, or rely on

unpaid family labor (Hakim 1988; Rath 2000). Respondents are classified as self-

employed (coded 1) if they identify as self-employed in their own incorporated or

unincorporated business, professional practice, or farm, or coded 0 if not (i.e., work-

ers). Furthermore, I assess self-employment earnings using the census variable total per-

sonal earned income, among those who identify as self-employed (someone who works

on his or her own account or own enterprise). The self-employment earnings variable is

also logged.

Background Characteristics

Differences in hourly earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment

earnings are affected by human capital (education and work experience). In this analysis,

age is included as a human capital variable since as people get older, they are likely to

acquire more work experience (Borjas 1985; Archer 1991) and skills and knowledge

valued in the U.S. economy (Tienda and Singer 1995). Education is defined as a series of

dummy variables that capture eighth grade or less (reference group), ninth grade through

high school graduate, some college through bachelors degree, and graduate or profes-

sional degree. In addition, I include English proficiency as an indicator of human capital,

since English proficiency has been shown to be a valued skill in the mainstream econ-omy, especially among immigrants (Tienda and Wilson 1992; Light and Roach 1996).

English proficiency is dummy coded, with the ability to speak English well or very

well coded as 1 and not well or not at all coded as 0.

Married status affects socioeconomic outcomes. Specifically, being married improves

mens earnings (Kalmijn 1996) and increases mens self-employment participation (Light

and Bonacich 1988). Whether married status has the same effect on womens earnings

and self-employment will be assessed here. Married status is defined as married (coded

as 1) and other (single, widowed, divorced) (coded as 0).

Citizenship status affects the labor market prospects and socioeconomic outcomes of

the foreign-born Mexicans (Tienda and Singer 1995). Citizenship status is defined as U.S.citizen or U.S. citizen by naturalization (the latter among the foreign born) (coded as 1)

and not a citizen (i.e., legal permanent residents and the undocumented) (coded as

0). There are differences among noncitizens. For instance, undocumented workers are

more likely to face exploitation (Portes and Bach 1985; Donato et al. 1992), fewer job

opportunities, and slower wage growth than legal permanent residents (Kossoudji and

Cobb-Clark 2002). Still, immigrants who have adjusted their status from undocumented

to legal, permanent residents are, on average, younger, less educated, and report fewer

years of U.S. residence than the total foreign-born population (Tienda and Singer

1995:115). Hence, although this latter category includes undocumented immigrants and

permanent legal residents (e.g., those with a green card), it is likely to capture the


8/28

404



Zulema Valdez

harsher context of reception among noncitizens, many of whom are younger, less edu-

cated, report fewer years of U.S. residence, and entered the United States illegally.

Finally, industry is included as an additional control variable, with retail industry

serving as the reference group.Table 1 presents some descriptive characteristics of the sample. With respect to age,

the U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white population is at least three years older than the U.S.-

born Mexican or foreign-born population, on average (43 years compared to 40 years

among U.S.-born Mexicans and 37.5 years among foreign-born Mexicans).

Findings also indicate that foreign-born Mexicans are less educated than their

U.S.-born counterparts, and U.S.-born Mexicans are less educated than U.S.-born,

non-Hispanic whites. Fully 85.7 percent of foreign-born men and 81.5 percent of

foreign-born women report earning a high school education or less, but only around 5

percent report earning a bachelors degree or better. In comparison, 13 percent of U.S.-

born Mexican men and 15 percent of U.S.-born Mexican women received a bachelorsdegree or better. U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites are twice as likely to hold a graduate

or professional degree as U.S.-born Mexican men and women. Moreover, and not

surprisingly, U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans are fluent in English;

however, only 50 percent of foreign-born Mexicans report speaking English well or

very well.

Around 60 percent of this working-age population is married. The U.S.-born,

non-Hispanic white men are more likely to be married (66.5 percent), followed by

foreign-born Mexican men (64.3 percent), U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white women

(61.5 percent), and U.S.-born Mexican men (60.3 percent). The U.S.-born Mexicanwomen are least likely to be married (56.4 percent).

Citizenship status is a birthright for those born in the United States, so citizenship sta-

tus is recorded here for the foreign-born only. Only 25.3 percent of men and 31.7 percent

of women identify as naturalized citizens, and approximately 75 percent of foreign-born

men and 60 percent of foreign-born women are noncitizens (legal permanent residents

or the undocumented).

The residential distribution of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, U.S.-born Mexicans,

and foreign-born Mexicans is similar across the Southwest. Fully 85 percent of non-

Hispanic whites and Mexicans reside in just two states with differences among Mexicans

noted by nativity. The majority of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites (45 percent) andforeign-born Mexicans (55 percent) reside in California, followed by Texas. The majority

of U.S.-born Mexicans reside in Texas (48 percent), followed by California (38 percent).

Following California and Texas, non-Hispanic whites concentrate in Colorado, Arizona,

and then New Mexico; Mexicans concentrate in Arizona first, Colorado second, and New

Mexico third.

Just over 30 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and women identify as recent

immigrants to the United States (10 years or less). This number increases among interme-

diate residents (11 to 20 years); 42 percent of men and 39 percent of women are found in

this mid-range category. A decrease is noted among long-term, foreign-born men and

women (26 percent and 30 percent, respectively).


9/28

Zulema Valdez



405

TAB

LE1.

MeansofVariablesforU.S.-BornWhites,U.S.-BornMexicans,andForeign-BornMexicansinthe

Southwest,Aged2564in2000

White

Mexican

Men

Women

Men

Women

U.S.-born

U.S.-bo

rn

US-born

Foreig

n-born

U.S.-born

F

oreign-born

Age

43

43

40

37

40

38

Edu

cation

E

ighthgradeorless

0.9

0

.6

7.0

45.4

5.3

40.8

N

inththroughhighschoolgraduate

27.4

25

.7

45.4

39.4

41.4

39.8

S

omecollegethroughbachelors

58.5

62

.1

42.7

13.2

48.0

17.2

G

raduateorprofessionaldegree

13.2

11

.6

5.0

2.0

5.3

2.1

SpeaksEnglish

99.7

99

.7

97.2

50.4

97.8

47.9

Marriedstatus

66.5

61

.5

60.3

64.3

56.4

61.6

Citizenshipstatus

25.3

31.7

State(percent)

A

rizona

9.0

9

.2

6.9

7.0

7.1

6.4

C

alifornia

44.7

44

.6

37.7

54.6

38.8

56.9

C

olorado

10.3

10

.4

3.7

3.0

3.5

2.4

N

ewMexico

2.3

2

.3

3.4

1.6

3.0

1.6

T

exas

33.7

33

.4

48.3

33.8

47.6

32.8

Len

gthofResidenceinUnitedStates(percent)

R

ecent(lessthan10years)

NA

NA

NA

32.1

NA

31.6

Intermediate(1120years)

NA

NA

NA

41.9

NA

38.4

L

ong-term(21yearsormore)

NA

NA

NA

26.1

NA

30.0

Sou

rce:20005percentIntegratedPub

licUseMicrodataSeries(IPUMS),U.S.BureauoftheCensus.

Notes:NA,notapplicable;SEI,socioeconomicindex.


10/28

406



Zulema Valdez

Earnings

H

ourlyearnings

24.00

15

.75

15.65

10.86

12.25

8.06

L

oggedhourlyearnings

2.8

2

.4

2.4

2.1

2.2

1.7

T

otalearnings

55,617

31,645

34,395

23,171

24,166

1

4,949

Occ

upationalstatus(SEIscore):

S

EI

48.6

52

.8

37.7

23.8

46.5

27.0

L

ogofSEI

3.7

3

.9

3.4

2.9

3.7

3.0

Self-employedtotalearnings

68,724

33,632

44,903

30,613

26,129

1

7,307

Self-employedoccupationalstatus(SEIscore)

S

elf-employedSEI

49.5

49

.4

39.3

28.9

39.7

25.4

L

ogofself-employedSEI

3.7

3

.7

3.4

3.1

3.4

2.9

Self-employed(percent)

16.0

10

.2

8.9

8.7

4.9

7.8

UnweightedN

392,098

339,379

31,039

35,998

27,730

1

8,878

White

Mexican

Men

Women

Men

Women

U.S.-born

U.S.-bo

rn

US-born

Foreig

n-born

U.S.-born

F

oreign-born

Sou

rce:20005percentIntegratedPub

licUseMicrodataSeries(IPUMS),U.S.BureauoftheCensus.

Notes:NA,notapplicable;SEI,socioeconomicindex.

TAB

LE1.

Continued


11/28

Zulema Valdez



407

Generally, foreign-born Mexicans are younger, more likely to concentrate in Califor-

nia, and are less educated than their U.S.-born counterparts. U.S.-born Mexicans are

younger, more likely to concentrate in Texas, and are less educated than U.S.-born, non-

Hispanic whites. These factors, along with differences in married status, citizenship sta-tus, and industry, contribute to each groups overall socioeconomic outcomes. To exam-

ine segmented assimilation among Mexicans, I conduct a multivariate analysis that

investigates how immigrants length of residence in the United States and nativity affect

the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans, as compared to those of U.S.-born, non-

Hispanic whites, while holding constant these influential background factors and consid-

ering gender and skill level.

ANALYSIS STRATEGY

In Table 2, I present the unstandardized ordinary least squares (OSL) regression coeffi-cients of hourly earnings and the logistic regression odds ratios of self-employment par-

ticipation among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-born

Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In Table 3, I present OLS regression

coefficients of self-employment earnings among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of res-

idence increases) against U.S.-born Mexicans. Findings are presented in terms of percent

change.

FINDINGS

Earnings

To observe gradual changes in hourly earnings, I focus on length of residence among the

foreign born and nativity in model 1 of Table 2. Background characteristics that include

human capital, married status, citizenship status, and industry are added to the model in

model 2 of Table 2.

Model 1 of Table 2 reveals large differences in the hourly earnings of foreign-born and

U.S.-born Mexicans, when compared to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. The hourly

earnings of foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans are significantly lower than those of

U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Moreover, although foreign-born earnings improve as

immigrants reside in the United States longer, the hourly earnings of U.S.-born Mexicansremain significantly higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts.

With the inclusion of background characteristics in model 2 of Table 2, foreign-born

and U.S.-born Mexicans continue to earn less than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites,

more so among males than females, regardless of skill. In addition, findings reveal differ-

ences in earnings by skill, length of residence, and nativity. Specifically, and regardless of

gender, the earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are lower than those of their

foreign-born counterparts, while the earnings of high-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are

higher

than those of their foreign-born counterparts. For example, as length of residence

increases, the earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born men increase from 15 percent lower

earnings among recent immigrants to 6 percent lower earnings among long-term


12/28

408



Zulema Valdez

TAB

LE2.

RegressionofHourlyEarningsandSelf-EmploymentParticipationbyImmigrantsLengthofResidenceintheUnitedStatesandNa

tivityamong

MexicansandagainstU.S.-bornWhite

s,Aged2564in2000(Models1an

d2)

Independent

Variables

Men

Women

Loghourlyearnings

Self-employment(oddsratios)

Loghourlyearnings

Self-employment(odds

ratios)

Lowskilled

Highskilled

Lowskilled

H

ighskilled

Lowskilled

H

ighskilled

Lowskilled

Highskilled

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

Age

0.051***

(0.002)

0.102***

(0.002)

1.123***

(0.006)

1.186***

(0.007)

0.042***

(0.003)

0.074***

(0.002)

1.050***

(0.009)

1.163***

(0.009)

Age(squared)

0.001***

(0.000)

0.001***

(0.000)

0.999***

(0.000)

0.999***

(0.000)

0.000***

(0.000)

0.001***

(0.000)

1.000***

(0.000)

0.999***

(0.000)

Educ

ation

Ninththrough

highschool

0.149***

(0.008)

0.091**

(0.031)

1.246***

(0.035)

1.075

(0.099)

0.133***

(0.014)

0.186***

(0.041)

1.199***

(0.051)

0.778

(0.148)

So

mecollege

throughBA

0.307***

(0.008)

0.351***

(0.030)

1.745***

(0.036)

0.733**

(0.098)

0.383***

(0.015)

0.474***

(0.041)

1.715***

(0.054)

0.887

(0.147)

Graduate/

Professional

0.463***

(0.018)

0.674***

(0.031)

3.011***

(0.062)

1.040

(0.099)

0.565***

(0.030)

0.818***

(0.041)

2.030***

(0.086)

1.246

(0.148)

SpeaksEnglishwell

0.121***

(0.010)

0.154***

(0.026)

1.408***

(0.045)

0.958

(0.090)

0.101***

(0.018)

0.068*

(0.032)

1.408***

(0.068)

0.708**

(0.126)

Married

0.297***

(0.004)

0.224***

(0.005)

1.398***

(0.016)

1.088***

(0.017)

0.072***

(0.007)

0.084***

(0.005)

1.554***

(0.023)

1.373***

(0.022)

Citiz

en

0.099***

(0.012)

0.021

(0.035)

1.080

(0.056)

1.038

(0.120)

0.088***

(0.021)

0.047

(0.046)

0.972

(0.085)

1.206

(0.191)

Indu

stry

Ag

riculture

0.290***

(0.012)

0.173***

(0.026)

27.531***

(0.048)

1.185

(0.092)

0.322***

(0.026)

0.073

(0.047)

6.594***

(0.070)

1.607**

(0.150)

Mining

0.130***

(0.016)

0.280***

(0.021)

1.936***

(0.087)

0.971

(0.078)

0.466***

(0.092)

0.506***

(0.043)

0.844

(0.372)

0.521**

(0.206)

Eigh

thgradeorlessisthereferencecategory.

Reta

ilisthereferencecategory.

U.S.-bornwhitesarethereferencegroup.

*p

Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest

Documents

Transcript of Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest