The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2011 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2011. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 31 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2011 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively. For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the population is based on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. and who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia are included in the native-born Hispanic population. Hispanics who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia and who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens are included in the foreign-born Hispanic population.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2011 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2011. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 31 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2011 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens and are living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. and who are now living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia are included in the native-born population.

Hispanics have grown more satisfied with the nation’s direction and more confident in their finances since 2011, according to a new survey from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

Today, half of Latinos (51%) express satisfaction with the direction of the country, a 13 percentage point increase over 2011, when 38% said the same. One-third (33%) now report that their finances are in “excellent” or “good” shape, up from one-quarter (24%) who said the same in 2011. And looking forward, Latinos have grown more optimistic about their family’s finances in the next 12 months, with three-in-four (73%) expecting improvement, up from 67% who said the same in 2011.

These changing assessments about finances and the country’s direction occur as some economic indicators recently have improved for Hispanics. In the third quarter of 2012, the Hispanic unemployment rate was 9.9%, down from 11.2% in the third quarter of 2011. The Hispanic unemployment rate is also now below its level at the end of the Great Recession in the third quarter of 2009, when it stood at 12.7%.¹ The poverty rate among Hispanics has also declined, falling to 25.3% in 2011 from 26.5% in 2010 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 2012).

However, other economic indicators illustrate the difficult times that Latinos have faced since the onset of the Great Recession. Driven mainly by the collapse in the housing market, median household wealth among Latinos declined by 58% between 2005 and 2010 (the latest year for which such figures are available), more than that of either whites (18%) or blacks (54%).² In 2007, for the first time, the number of Latino children in poverty surpassed the number of white children or black children living in poverty (Lopez and Velasco, 2011). And by their own assessment, Latinos say they were hit harder by the recession than any other group (Taylor, Lopez, Velasco and Motel, 2012).

Nonetheless, the Pew Hispanic survey finds that, compared with the public as a whole, Hispanics are more satisfied with the country’s direction. Just 31% of the general public (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 2012) says they are satisfied with how things are going in the country today, compared with 51% among Hispanics.

When it comes to personal finances, Hispanics’ self-assessments, while improving, are not as positive as those of the general public. One-third (33%) of Hispanics say their current situation is “excellent” or “good” while 43% of the general public says the same. On the other hand, Hispanics are somewhat more optimistic than the general public about the future of their family finances. Some 73% of Hispanics say they think their finances will improve in the coming 12 months, while 67% of the general public says the same.

During this year’s presidential campaign, the issue of jobs and the economy has been a top concern for Hispanics, just as it is for the general public. According to the Pew Hispanic survey, 47% of all Hispanics rate the issue as “extremely important” to them personally (Lopez and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012). Among Hispanic registered voters, 54% rate jobs and the economy as extremely important.

This report is based on a nationally representative bilingual telephone survey of 1,765 Latino adults with a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The survey was fielded from September 7 to October 4, 2012, largely before the first presidential debate, which occurred on October 3, 2012. For a full description of the survey methodology, see Appendix B. The report is also based on a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey data. In addition, the report uses poverty and household income data published by the federal government.

About this Report

This report explores the economic attitudes and experiences of Hispanics. It is based on an analysis of several data sources. Hispanic attitudes and financial self-assessments are based on the 2012 National Survey of Latinos (NSL). The survey was conducted from September 7 through October 4, 2012, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia among a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 1,765 Latino adults. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish on cellular as well as landline telephones. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Interviews were conducted for the Pew Hispanic Center by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS).

The report also contains an analysis of unemployment rate trends among Hispanics and other groups based on Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). In addition, statistics on poverty rates and median household income published by the federal government are used.

This report was written by Associate Director Mark Hugo Lopez and Research Assistant Seth Motel. Paul Taylor and Rakesh Kochhar provided editorial guidance. The authors thank Paul Taylor, Scott Keeter, Leah Christian, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Rakesh Kochhar, Rich Morin, Kim Parker, Eileen Patten and Antonio Rodriguez for guidance on the development of the survey instrument. Patten number-checked the report. Molly Rohal was the copy editor.

A Note on Terminology

“Native born” refers to persons who are U.S. citizens at birth, including those born in the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories and those born abroad to parents at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen.

“Foreign born” refers to persons born outside of the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen.

“Foreign-born U.S. citizens” refers to persons who indicate they are “foreign born” and who indicate they are U.S. citizens. “Foreign-born legal residents” refers to persons who indicate they are foreign born and who say they have a green card or have been approved for one. “Foreign born who are not legal residents and not U.S. citizens” refers to persons who indicate they are foreign born, who say they do not have a green card and have not been approved for one, and who indicate they do not hold U.S. citizenship.

Two years after the U.S. labor market hit bottom, the economic recovery has yielded slow but steady gains in employment for all groups of workers. The gains, however, have varied across demographic groups, with Hispanics and Asians, in particular, experiencing a faster rate of growth in jobs than other groups. Their employment levels are higher now than just before the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, a milestone not yet reached by white and black workers.

The disparate trends in the jobs recovery from 2009 to 2011 reflect the rapidly changing demographics of the American workforce. Although jobs growth for Hispanics and Asians was more rapid than for other groups, it merely kept pace with the growth in their working-age (ages 16 and older) populations. The slower rate of jobs growth for whites and blacks reflects the relatively slow growth in their populations. Thus, the share of each group’s population that is employed, the employment rate, has barely risen since the end of the recession, according to new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

The story is the same when one looks at the jobs recovery for immigrants and native-born workers. Immigrants, the vast majority of whom are Hispanic or Asian, are experiencing a faster rate of growth in employment than are native-born workers. This difference is also roughly in line with the difference in the growth in their working-age populations during the recovery.

Demographic change, however, does not explain why men have gained more jobs than women since 2009. Among the groups examined in this report, women represent the only group for whom employment growth has lagged behind population growth in the recovery. Job cutbacks by federal, state and local governments is one reason women have lagged behind men in recent years, but a previous analysis by the Center found that much about this phenomenon remains unclear.¹

The Great Recession triggered a steep, two-year decline in employment. From a peak of 145.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2007, overall employment fell to a low of 138.1 million by the fourth quarter of 2009.² The labor market has since been on the mend, and in the two-year period ending in the fourth quarter of 2011, employment rose to 141.2 million, a gain of 2.3%.

For Hispanics, the recovery has raised employment from 19.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2009 to 20.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, an increase of 6.5%. For Asians, employment increased from 6.7 million to 7.2 million, or by 6.8%. Gains are smaller for whites, from 95.4 million to 96.4 million (1.1%), and blacks, from 14.3 million to 14.6 million (2.2%).³

Over the full cycle of the recession and the recovery, that is, from 2007 to 2011, employment increased from 19.9 million to 20.7 million for Hispanics and from 6.9 million to 7.2 million for Asians, an increase of about 4% for each group. For blacks and whites, employment levels remain about 5% below the levels at the start of the recession, with lingering losses of 4.9 million jobs for white workers and 0.8 million jobs for black workers.

The differences in jobs growth across groups largely reflect the differences in population growth. From 2007 to 2011, the Hispanic working-age (16 and older) population increased by 12.8% and the Asian working-age population increased by 10.9%. However, the white working-age population grew only 1.3%, and the black working-age population increased by 5% in this four-year period. Since much of the addition to the workforce is Hispanic and Asian,⁴ their share in employment growth is high.

Foreign-born workers are also experiencing a faster rate of growth in employment than native-born workers. In the recovery, from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2011, employment among the native born increased 1.8% (2 million) and employment among the foreign born increased 5.2% (1.1 million). This difference also reflects the difference in the growth in their working-age populations from 2009 to 2011.

Jobs growth for immigrant workers in the recovery has been sufficient to restore their employment to what it was just before the recession began—22.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared with 22.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. The number of employed native-born workers in the fourth quarter of 2011—118.6 million—was 4.8 million short of the number before the start of the recession.

Women, who fared better than men in the recession, have not done as well in the recovery. Men realized a gain of 2.6 million jobs from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2011, compared with only 0.6 million for women. Nonetheless, compared with before the start of the recession in 2007, employment levels for men are down by more, a loss of 3.4% for men versus 2.9% for women. Thus, men still face a steeper climb back.

This report focuses on two metrics to measure the strength of the economic recovery: changes in employment levels and changes in employment rates. The latter is the share of the working-age population that is employed. A rising share indicates that employment growth is outpacing population growth and that the economic recovery is robust enough to clear the backlog in employment created by the Great Recession. A flat share signals a weak recovery that is struggling to clear the backlog and to restore employment to its potential as defined by the employment rate that prevailed prior to the recession.

Although employment is on the rise in the economic recovery, it is growing at a rate that just keeps up with ongoing additions to the stock of workers. The Great Recession put about 8 million people out of work, and the employment rate fell from 63.0% in the fourth quarter of 2007 to 58.5% in the fourth quarter of 2009. By the end of 2011, the employment rate had risen only slightly, to 58.7%. This suggests that the slack created by the recession is still largely present in the labor market and that the share of people with jobs is much less than it could be, based on pre-recession outcomes.

The shortfall in employment relative to its potential is greatest for black workers. Their employment in the fourth quarter of 2011 is estimated to be 12% (about 2 million) below its potential. The current employment gap is estimated to be more than 7% (7 million) for whites, nearly 6% for Hispanics (upwards of 1 million) and 5% for Asians (less than 0.5 million). The percentage gaps for all racial and ethnic groups are only slightly smaller than they were two years ago.⁵

The unemployment rate, another key labor market indicator analyzed in the report, decreased from 2009 to 2011 for all groups examined in this report. But at least part of the drop in unemployment rates during the recovery is due to a smaller share of people actively seeking work. That is because people who do not actively seek work are not counted among the unemployed. Among racial and ethnic groups, this phenomenon was most notable for Hispanics and whites. Not coincidentally, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and whites decreased more during the recovery than it did for blacks and Asians.

A handful of industries were responsible for most of the job gains in the economic recovery. Both Hispanics and non-Hispanics gained significant numbers of jobs in professional business services, wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing. The leading source of jobs growth for Hispanics was the hospitality sector—eating, drinking and lodging services—where they gained 326,000 jobs from 2009 to 2011. They also gained 101,000 jobs in construction.

This report analyzes labor market outcomes in the economic recovery for racial and ethnic groups, the native born and the foreign born, and men and women. The recovery is defined as the two-year period from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2011. Officially, the Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. However, the employment level reached its trough six months later, in December 2009.⁶ Thus, the recession, for purposes of this report, is defined as the two-year period from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009.

The data for this report are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of about 55,000 households conducted jointly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau. Data from three monthly surveys were combined to create larger sample sizes for individual groups of workers. Thus, most of the analysis is conducted on a quarterly basis. Unless otherwise noted, estimates in this report are not seasonally adjusted.⁷

Estimates in this report are adjusted for annual, technical revisions to the CPS and will not match estimates published by the BLS (see Appendix A for details). Employment estimates in this report, from the survey of households, will also not match the payroll estimates of employment published by the BLS from its surveys of employers. Payroll data cannot be used in this report because, except for gender, they do not record the demographic characteristics of workers.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2010 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2010. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2010 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born population.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of about 3 million addresses. It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2010 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2010. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 37 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2010 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Census Design Methodology, respectively. For the purposes of this statistical portrait, persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born Hispanic population. Hispanics who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens are included in the foreign-born Hispanic population.

A second important factor is that Hispanics have a higher labor force participation rate than other groups. The nation’s labor force participation rate—that is, the share of the population ages 16 and older either employed or looking for work—was 64.7% in 2010. Among Hispanics, the rate was 67.5%. There are two main explanations for this gap: Hispanics are a younger population than other groups, and include a higher share of immigrants.

The figures for Hispanics come from the latest round of BLS projections for the U.S. labor force, covering 2010-2020, which indicate that growth will slow overall. These projections show that the labor force will increase by 10.5 million in this decade, growing to 164.4 million in 2020 from 153.9 million in 2010. That is less than the increase of 11.3 million from 2000 to 2010, and substantially less than the 16.7 million increase from 1990 to 2000. The projected average annual increase in the labor force from 2010 to 2020—0.7%—is also less than the annual growth of 0.8% from 2000 to 2010 and only about half the 1.3% annual rate of growth from 1990 to 2000.

A majority of Latinos (54%) believe that the economic downturn that began in 2007 has been harder on them than on other groups in America.

Large shares report that they or someone in their household has been out of work in the past year (59%); that their personal finances are in “only fair” or “poor” shape (75%); that they canceled or delayed a major purchase in the past year (49%); or that they are underwater on their mortgage (28% of Latino homeowners).

The findings are drawn from a new telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,220 Hispanic adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. For a full description of the survey methodology, see Appendix C.

Latinos, who make up 16% of the population of the United States, have long trailed other Americans on most measures of economic well-being, but analyses of recent government trend data indicate that the gaps have widened since 2005, a period that encompasses the housing market crash and the Great Recession. For example:

• Household wealth: From 2005 to 2009, median household wealth (all assets minus all debt) among Latinos fell by 66%, compared with a drop of 53% among blacks and 16% among whites (Kochhar, Fry and Taylor, 2011).
• Unemployment: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among Latinos in December 2011 was 11.0%, up from 6.3% at the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. Over the same period, the national unemployment rate increased from 5.0% to 8.5%.
• Poverty: Between 2006 and 2010, the poverty rate among Hispanics increased nearly six percentage points—more than any other group—from 20.6% to 26.6%. By contrast, poverty rates among whites increased from 8.2% to 9.9%. And among blacks,¹ poverty rates increased from 24.3% to 27.4% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 2011).

The new Pew Hispanic survey finds that most Latinos are broadly aware of these trends. Fully 54% say Hispanics have been hurt more than other groups by the economic downturn of the past four years, while just 5% say they have been hurt less. Some 38% say Hispanics have been affected about as much as other groups.

In their responses to a more detailed battery of questions, Latinos are more downbeat than the general public about various aspects of their economic lives. For example:

• Personal finances: Just 24% of Latinos rate their personal finance as excellent or good, compared with 38% of the general public.²
• Unemployment: Some 59% of Latinos say someone in their household has been out of work and looking for a job in the past year, compared with 51% of the general public.³
• Homeownership: Some 28% of Latino homeowners say they owe more on their home than they could sell it for today, compared with just 14% of homeowners in the general public.⁴

Despite these downbeat assessments about their current economic circumstances, Latinos are more upbeat than others about the prospect for better days ahead—both for themselves and their families in the short term and for their children over the long haul.

Fully two-thirds (67%) of Latinos say they expect their financial situation to improve over the next year, compared with 58% of the general population who say the same. Also, two-thirds (66%) of Latinos say they expect their children to eventually enjoy a standard of living that is better than theirs is now. By contrast, just 48% of the general public says the same.

The Latino population, at 50 million strong, is the largest minority group in the country. Some 52% of Latino adults are immigrants, and 48% were born in the United States. As is often the case, the new survey finds significant differences in the attitudes and experiences reported by these two groups.

In general, immigrants are more downbeat. For example, 62% of Latino immigrants say Latinos have been more hurt by the bad economy than other groups, compared with 45% of the native born who say the same. Just 16% of immigrants say their economic situation is “excellent” or “good,” compared with 32% of the native born. And 63% of immigrants say they expect their financial situation and that of their family to improve in the coming year, compared with 71% of the native born.

Immigrants, however, are more likely than the native born to say their children will eventually have a higher standard of living than theirs is now—72% versus 59%.

Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren and members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify at this hearing on jobs in the recession and recovery. I am appearing before you today as the principal author of a report the Pew Hispanic Center released in October 2010 entitled “After the Great Recession: Foreign Born Gain Jobs; Native Born Lose Jobs.” My testimony today summarizes and updates some of the key findings of our report. The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, does not take positions on policy issues.

The 2010 report focused on the period from the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, when most of the job losses during the Great Recession occurred, and the period from the second quarter of 2009 to the second quarter of 2010, the first year of recovery from the recession. We found that in the year following the official end of the recession in June 2009, foreign-born workers, who make up 15.7% of the labor force, gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost 1.2 million. As a result, the unemployment rate for immigrant workers fell 0.6 percentage points during this period (from 9.3% to 8.7%), while for native-born workers it rose 0.5 percentage points (from 9.2% to 9.7%).

Because five months have passed since the release of our report, I have taken this opportunity to update our results through the fourth quarter of 2010. The updated results show that the economic recovery is now offering more widespread job opportunities for both native-born and foreign-born workers.

More specifically, in the one year period from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, foreign-born workers gained 657,000 jobs and native-born workers gained 685,000 jobs. The unemployment rate dropped for both groups during this period. For immigrant workers it fell 0.2 percentage points (from 10.1% to 9.9%) and for native-born workers it decreased by about 0.5 percentage points (from 9.5% to 9.0%).

The fourth quarter of 2010 is the first period since the middle of 2008 that native-born workers have experienced positive jobs growth (growth being measured as the change over the same quarter in the previous year). For foreign-born workers, the fourth quarter of 2010 marks the third successive period of jobs growth. Thus, the economic recovery now appears to be benefiting all workers, although the gains to native-born workers have been a bit later in coming.

But the jobs recovery has been far from complete for either group of workers. From the beginning of the recession in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2010, native-born workers lost 6.1 million jobs, a drop of 4.9%, and foreign-born workers lost 262,000 jobs, or a drop of 1.2%. The unemployment rate for native-born workers is up from 4.6% to 9.0% and for immigrants it is up from 4.5% to 9.9%.

But the jobs recovery has been far from complete for either group of workers. From the beginning of the recession in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2010, native-born workers lost 6.1 million jobs, a drop of 4.9%, and foreign-born workers lost 262,000 jobs, or a drop of 1.2%. The unemployment rate for native-born workers is up from 4.6% to 9.0% and for immigrants it is up from 4.5% to 9.9%.

The reasons that the initial stage of the economic recovery has proceeded differently for native-born and foreign-born workers are not entirely clear. One factor might be greater flexibility on the part of immigrants. Research by others suggests that immigrants are more mobile than native-born workers, moving more fluidly across regions, industries and occupations. The flip side of flexibility can be jobs instability and a loss in earnings. Our own (unpublished) research finds that immigrants are more likely to exit from and enter into employment on a month-to-month basis. Our October 2010 report also noted a sharper decline in earnings for immigrant workers from mid-2009 to mid-2010. Our review of the data for the final two quarters of 2010 suggests that this differential persisted through the end of last year.

Another reason that immigrants found greater success in regaining jobs at the start of the recovery might simply be that their employment patterns are more volatile over the business cycle. Statistically, that means they are subject to greater extremes—both good and bad. In other words, immigrants register sharper losses in the early stages of recessions but rebound quicker in the recovery. That pattern played out in the 2001 recession and recovery, and it appears to be repeating now. The downward trajectory of job losses during the recession was steeper for immigrants and now they are seemingly on a steeper climb out of the recession.

Demographic changes, both short term and long term, might also be a factor in determining employment trends in the recession and recovery. The ebb and flow of immigration is sensitive to the business cycle, with economic expansions tending to boost inflows. A February 2011 report from the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that, coincidental with the economic downturn, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor force fell from 8.4 million in March 2007 to 7.8 million in March 2009. As of March 2010 there were 8.0 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor. Thus, it appears that the decline in the number of unauthorized workers in the U.S. has stopped.

Demographic changes, both short term and long term, might also be a factor in determining employment trends in the recession and recovery. The ebb and flow of immigration is sensitive to the business cycle, with economic expansions tending to boost inflows. A February 2011 report from the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that, coincidental with the economic downturn, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor force fell from 8.4 million in March 2007 to 7.8 million in March 2009. As of March 2010 there were 8.0 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor. Thus, it appears that the decline in the number of unauthorized workers in the U.S. has stopped.

As economic volatility diminishes, longer-term demographic trends are more likely to reassert themselves in the jobs market. The immigrant share of the U.S. working-age population (ages 16 and older) has been on the rise for several decades, especially since 1990. Slightly more than 15% of the working-age population is foreign born, up from a little less than 10% in 1995. Because the foreign-born working-age population has been growing faster than the native-born population, the number of immigrants in the labor force and the number employed have tended to rise faster than for the native born. The pattern during the current recovery is consistent with the long-run demographic trend—from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, the foreign born labor force increased by 668,000, while the native-born labor force increased by 146,000.

The specific data sources for this statistical profile are the 1% sample of the 2009 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the 5% sample of the 2000 Census IPUMS provided by the University of Minnesota.¹ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2009. Due to differences in the way in which the IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided in Tables 27 – 34 might differ from data on these variables that are provided by the Census Bureau. For more information about the IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit http://usa.ipums.org/usa/design.shtml. To learn more about the sampling strategy and associated error of the 2000 Census or the 2009 American Community Survey, please refer to Chapter 8 of the U.S. Census Summary File 3: 2000 and U.S. Cenus Design Methodology, respectively.

Because persons living in group quarters were not included in the 2005 ACS, the data contained in this profile of foreign-born persons, tabulated from the 2009 ACS, are not comparable with the data included in the Pew Hispanic Center’s Foreign Born at Mid-Decade report.

For the purposes of this statistical portrait, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. are included in the native-born population.