Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Economic Contributions of Mexican Americans in Minnesota

Bruce P. Corrie, PhD corrie@csp.edu The economic contribution of Mexican Americans to the Minnesotan economy can be documented in four main areas:
  • As consumers of goods and services
  • As workers
  • As business owners and employers, and
  • As tax payers
Further, the Minnesotan economy is increasingly being tied with the Mexican economy through trade. Below are some data on the economic contributions of Mexican Americans to the economy of Minnesota. Thanks to Readus Fletcher of the City of Saint Paul’s Minority Business Development and Retention department for assistance on this project.
  • Mexican Americans have an estimated buying power of $1.1 billion.
  • According to the Economic Census 1997, there were over a 1000 Mexican American firms in Minnesota with 213 million dollars in sales, employing between 2500 to 4900 people.
  • According to Census 2000 there were 38, 555 Mexican American workers in Minnesota.
  • 92 percent of Mexican American households in Minnesota did not receive any social security income – they were net contributors to the social security fund (Census 2000).
  • 92 percent of Mexican Americans households in Minnesota reported no public assistance income according to Census 2000.
  • Mexican Americans in Minnesota paid 8.2 million dollars in real estate taxes according to Census 2000.
  • Mexican Americans in Minnesota paid 7.2 million dollars in rent according to Census 2000.
  • Latino immigrant labor contributes about $480 million in annual value added to the economy of South Central Minnesota, including an additional $45 million in state and local tax revenue (Kielkopf, 2000)
  • In the following 15 counties Mexican American buying power ranged from 10 to 46 million dollars: St. Louis, Mcleod, Clay, Stearns, Carver, Wantonwan, Kandiyohi, Mower, Freeborn, Scott, Nobles, Olmsted, Rice, Anoka and Washington.
  • Mexican American buying power was an estimated 99 million dollars in Dakota County, 237 million dollars in Ramsey County and 364 million dollars in Hennepin County.
  • In the following 19 cities in Minnesota Mexican American buying power ranged between 10 and 23 million dollars: Woodbury, Northfield, Maplewood, St. Louis Park, Plymouth, Burnsville, Faribault, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, South Saint Paul, Bloomington, Willmar, Albert Lea, Austin, Rochester, Brooklyn Park, West Saint Paul, Worthington and Richfield.
  • In Minneapolis Mexican American buying power is an estimated 215 million dollars and in Saint Paul an estimated 189 million dollars.
  • In 2004, total value of Minnesota Mexico trade (exports and Imports) was almost $1.5 billion dollars. (Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics)
  • In 2004, Mexico was among the top 10 export markets for Minnesota. Exports to Mexico grew by 42 percent – much higher than the national average. (Source: DEED)

Monday, December 19, 2005

Minnesota Lessons from CA Study of Immigrants

Bruce P. Corrie, Ph.D. corrie@csp.edu A report by an independent research organization, Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy recently presented its report to the California government. http://www.labor.ca.gov/panel/impactimmcaecon.pdf. The report reviews a wide range of studies on the impact of immigration both legal and illegal on the California and national economy (Please see report for extensive links to studies on immigration and the economy). The report’s conclusions are helpful to us in Minnesota as we explore this issue and are excerpted below: General: Immigration policy in the United States is a federal responsibility. Congress sets immigration eligibility rules and limits, and the federal government has the responsibility for border security. Even though immigration policy is a federal responsibility, the effects of immigration are concentrated in states, such as California, where most immigrants live. This disparity between federal responsibility and local impact helps make immigration one of the most hotly debated public policy issues. Defining Terms: Various organizations use different terms to refer to people who reside in the United States without legal authorization. The Census Bureau and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) generally use the term unauthorized immigrant. This is the term used throughout this report. Other organizations use different terms. The Pew Hispanic Center now uses the term unauthorized migrant. The Urban Institute and the National Council of La Raza use the term undocumented immigrant. The U.S. General Accounting Office uses the terms illegal immigrant and illegal alien. The Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform use the term illegal immigrant. Unauthorized immigrants enter the country in one of two principal ways:
  • By crossing the border without valid immigration documents; or
  • By entering with a valid visa and then remaining in the country after their visas expire.
Fiscal Impacts: The National Research Council studies and other studies raise many methodological and measurement questions about getting accurate estimates of the fiscal effects of immigration and, particularly, unauthorized immigration. The methodological and measurement issues (many of which are mentioned earlier in this chapter) derive from the fact that existing studies:
  • Generally omit long-term impacts;
  • Differ on which costs should be attributed to immigrants;
  • Differ on how to account for taxes paid by immigrants;
  • Count all education spending as a cost (rather than an investment) and omit the benefits of investing in education;
  • Differ on how to incorporate the children of immigrants;
  • Do not generally take a comprehensive look at federal, state and local fiscal impacts; and
  • Look at a single point in time and do not estimate trends in fiscal impacts.
Fiscal Balance Varies by Jurisdiction Federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are the largest tax payments made by low-income residents, regardless of whether they are immigrants or native-born citizens. However, the largest public service costs are for education—and most of these costs are paid for at the state and local level. When the distribution of all public service costs and tax payments is taken into account, all studies of the fiscal effects of immigration agree that the fiscal balance is negative at the state and local level. Moreover, the state and local fiscal effects are felt most keenly in jurisdictions with higher shares of low-income immigrants. Some jurisdictions experience more negative fiscal balances than others. Immigration policy in the United States is a federal responsibility. Congress sets immigration eligibility rules and limits, and the federal government has the responsibility for border security. Because immigration policy is a federal responsibility, and because the fiscal balance for immigrants can be positive at the federal level and negative at the state and local level, states with large immigrant populations—whether legal or unauthorized—regularly ask Congress for financial assistance to offset the current costs of serving unauthorized immigrants. Some federal financial assistance is granted for emergency Medicaid costs and for prison costs, but that federal assistance covers only approximately 10% of the costs of these programs. Economic Impacts The economic impact of immigration falls into two broad categories:
  • Effects on the overall economy—including economic growth, unemployment, wages and price levels.
  • Effects on individuals—including, in particular, whether individuals’ wages or job opportunities are affected as a result of immigration.
The conclusion of most research on the subject is that immigration provides net economic benefits to domestic residents, although some individuals may suffer losses of income. In other words, immigration provides net benefits—but there are both winners and losers. The ability of immigrants to acquire experience, and the ability of their children to acquire a good education, including college education, will play a large role in determining the long-term economic and fiscal impact of immigration in the state and the nation. Some California Trends:
  • Job growth — California’s job growth has outpaced the national average since 1994. Although California has experienced two downturns since 1990 (the aerospace-led downturn in the early 1990s and the Internet/tech-led downturn after 2000), immigration was not a factor in either downturn.
  • Poverty rate — California’s poverty rate is now close to the national average, after having been 3% higher than the nation’s rate in the early 1990s. The poverty rate declines as the immigrants’ length of residence in the U.S. increases.
  • Average wage levels — California average wages have risen faster than the national average since 1990. They were 13% above the national average in 2004.
  • English language proficiency — English language proficiency and high school graduation rates rise in the second generation. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that only 7% of second-generation Latinos use Spanish as their primary language. In the third generation of Latinos, 78% use English as their primary language, and the other 22% are bilingual.
In The Costs of Immigration to Taxpayers, analysts George Vernez and Kevin McCarthy conclude: Existing studies of the costs of immigration do not provide a reliable or accurate estimate of the net costs and benefits of immigration—even when those costs and benefits are defined narrowly. Moreover, without reaching consensus on a host of conceptual and accounting issues, we doubt that additional studies will shed light on these important policy questions. Thanks to Barbara Ronnigen of the State Demographer’s Office for bringing this study to my attention.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Principles for Comprehensive Immigration Policy

Minnesota's Competitive edge will depend on how we address the role and place of immigrants in our economy - ranging from the high technology arena to the low skilled areas of our workforce. The following are suggested principles to guide our discourse on this issue.

  • Respect the dignity of the person
  • Keep issues relating to immigrants, legal and illegal, in the policy arena and not the political arena
  • There is a clear distinction between a terrorist and an immigrant (legal or undocumented worker). Each calls for separate responses.
  • Good immigration policy looks at both the costs and benefits of immigration related issues.
  • Mexico and the United States have a symbiotic relationship that impacts a number of issues including immigration policy.
  • Minnesota's increasing ties to a global economy demands a global perspective on policies, especially immigration policy.

If you like your name to be added to these principles (or if you have suggestions) please send a message to corrie@csp.edu and I will add it to the list posted on my blog- http://ethnictrends.blogspot.com

Supporters of the Immigrant Principles

Isabel Chanslor

Marcy Das-Sulc

David Zander

Adeel Lari

Ramon Leon

Barbara Jo Davis

Mary Laeger-Hagemeister

Edwina Garcia

Thursday, December 08, 2005

One Sided State Report on Illegal Immigrants

Bruce P. Corrie, PhD corrie@csp.edu The recent report of the Department of Administration on undocumented workers gives a one sided perspective on the impact of these workers on the Minnesotan economy. According to the report, undocumented workers or illegal immigrants cost the state $180 million a year. The report concludes that the net costs of undocumented workers are greater than their tax payments. (http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Administration/Report_The_Impact_of_Illegal_Immigration_on_Minnesota_120805035315_Illegale ) Interestingly the report does not refer to a study commissioned by HACER Minnesota in 2000 done by James Kielkopf which reported the following: (http://www.hacer-mn.org/PDFs/Undocumented.pdf)
  • Undocumented workers account for at least $1.56 billion a year in valued added to the Minnesotan economy.
  • The economic impact of undocumented workers accounts to as much as 2.4 percent of Minnesota’s GDP.
  • Up to 50,000 Minnesotans owe their jobs to the presence of undocumented workers. For every undocumented worker removed from the economy there is a corresponding loss of a job somewhere else in the economy.
  • These workers contribute an estimated $1 billion in tax revenue and are a net benefit to Minnesota.
Further, my analysis of data on Minnesota firms sanctioned by the INS for employing undocumented workers revealed that a wide range of industries across 69 counties and 196 cities in Minnesota used undocumented workers (See blog below). These workers are subsidizing our standard of living in Minnesota. In order to come up with a comprehensive solution to the issue of undocumented workers we need to have a complete picture of the impact of these workers else we will just be chasing policy windmills.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Over 1000 MN Firms in 69 counties used Undocumented Workers

Bruce P. Corrie, PhD corrie@csp.edu Over 1000 Minnesota companies in 196 Minnesota cities and 69 Minnesota counties used undocumented workers. These firms were in 23 percent of Minnesota’s cities and 79 percent of Minnesota’s counties. The firms were found in 75 SIC 4 digit industry categories ranging from roofers to commercial printing. Undocumented workers do have a significant impact on the Minnesotan economy. Similar to cheap Chinese imports keeping our inflation low, cheap labor of the undocumented workers are subsidizing our lifestyles in Minnesota in substantial ways. The companies cover a wide spectrum of Minnesota’s firms and include some prominent Minnesota institutions. The data reveals the importance of undocumented workers to the Minnesota economy. The data will help policy makers recognize the important contribution these invisible workers make to the Minnesotan economy and spur them to develop a comprehensive immigration strategy. The Pew Center estimates that there are around 55-85,000 undocumented workers in Minnesota (http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf). The data was obtained from the INS by the Center for Immigration Studies. The data reports cases of companies sanctioned by the INS for employing undocumented workers in Minnesota mainly during the period 1989-2000. Below are the major cities and counties where the firms were located as well as the 75 SIC four digit categories of firms that employed undocumented workers. SIC Code Category 8361 HOMES,RESIDENTIAL CARE 8211 SCHOOLS,ELEMENTARY & SECO 8099 HEALTH & ALLIED SVCS,NEC 8082 HOME HEALTH CARE SVCS 8052 INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILIT 8051 NURSING CARE FACILITIES,S 7997 SPORTS & RECREATION CLUBS 7991 PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITI 7542 CARWASHES 7538 AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS,G 7389 BUSINESS SVCS,NEC 7361 EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES 7359 EQUIPMENT RENTAL & LEASIN 7349 BLDG CLEANING & MAINTENAN 7299 PERSONAL SVCS,NEC 7221 PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS,PORT 7218 INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERERS 7213 LINEN SUPPLY SVCS 7011 HOTELS & MOTELS 6512 BLDG OPERATORS,NON-RESIDE 6011 BANKS,FEDERAL RESERVE 5963 DIRECT SELLING ESTABLISHM 5944 JEWELRY STORES 5941 SPORTING GOODS STORES & B 5812 RESTAURANTS 5812 NURSING & PERSONAL CARE F 5713 FLOOR COVERING STORES 5699 APPAREL & ACCESSORY STORE 5651 FAMILY CLOTHING STORES 5511 CAR & TRUCKS DEALERS,NEW 5499 FOOD STORES,MISC 5411 GROCERY STORES 5399 GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE 5331 VARIETY STORES 5311 DEPARTMENT STORES 5199 NON-DURABLE GOODS,NEC,WHL 5159 FARM-PRODUCT RAW MATERIAL 5099 DURABLE GOODS,NEC,WHLS 5093 SCRAP & WASTE MATERIALS,W 5015 MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS,USED, 4724 TRAVEL AGENCIES 4213 TRUCKING,EXC LOCAL 4151 SCHOOL BUSES 3999 MANUFCTRNG INDUSTRIES,NEC 3842 ORTHOPEDIC & SURGICAL APP 3711 MOTOR VEHICLE MFRS 3672 PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS 3643 WIRING DEVICE MFRS,CURREN 3629 ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIAL APP 3585 AIR CONDITIONING & HEATIN 3544 SPECIAL DIE & TOOL MAKERS 3499 METAL PRODUCT MFRS,NEC,FA 3496 WIRE PRODUCT MFRS,MISC,FA 3449 STRUCTURAL METALWORK MFRS 3423 TOOL MFRS,HAND & EDGE 2789 BOOKBINDING & RELATED WOR 2752 COMMERCIAL PRINTING,LITHO 2448 PALLETS & SKIDS MFRS,WOOD 2389 APPAREL & ACCESSORIES MFR 2099 FOOD PREPARATIONS MFRS,NE 2022 CHEESE MFRS,NATURAL,PROCE 2015 POULTRY SLAUGHTERING & PR 2011 MEAT PACKING PLANTS 1796 BLDG EQUIP INSTALLATION & 1761 ROOFING,SIDING & SHEET ME 1742 PLASTER DRYWALL INSULATIO 1741 MASONRY,STONE SET & OTHER 1721 PAINTING & PAPER HANGING 1542 CONTRACTORS,NON-RESIDENTI 1522 CONTRACTORS,MULTIFAMILY U 0782 LAWN & GARDEN SVCS 0253 TURKEY & TURKEY EGG FARMS 0191 FARMS,GENERAL,PRIMARILY C 0181 NURSERIES,FLOWERS,ETC 0000 MAINTENANCE CITYNAME ADRIAN AFTON AITKIN ALBANY ALBERT LEA ALEXANDRIA ALTURA ANOKA APPLE VALLEY APPLETON ARLINGTON AUSTIN BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP BEMIDJI BIG LAKE BLAINE BLOOMINGTON BRAINERD BRECKENRIDGE BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK BROOKS BUFFALO BUFFALO LAKE BURNSVILLE BUTTERFIELD CAMBRIDGE CANNON FALLS CARVER CHAMPLIN CHANHASSEN CHASKA CLARA CITY CLEARBROOK CLEARWATER COLD SPRING COLOGNE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMFREY COON RAPIDS COTTAGE GROVE CROOKSTON CRYSTAL DALTON DAYTON DETROIT LAKES DEXTER DODGE CENTER DULUTH EAGAN EASTON EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA ELKO ELLENDALE ELY EVELETH EXCELSIOR FAIRMONT FARMINGTON FERGUS FALLS FOREST LAKE FRAZEE FRIDLEY GARFIELD GAYLORD GLENWOOD GOLDEN VALLEY GOODVIEW GRAND PORTAGE GRAND RAPIDS HAM LAKE HASTINGS HECTOR HIBBING HOPKINS HUGO INVER GROVE HEIGHTS JACKSON JORDAN KASOTA KENYON LA CRESCENT LAKE ELMO LAKE PARK LAKEVILLE LAPORTE LE SUEUR LITCHFIELD LITTLE CANADA LITTLE FALLS LONG LAKE LORETTO LUCAN LUVERNE LYMAN MADELIA MADISON MAHTOMEDI MANKATO MAPLE GROVE MAPLE PLAIN MAPLETON MAPLEWOOD MARSHALL MAYER MEDINA MENDOTA MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINETONKA MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA CITY MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA MONTGOMERY MOORHEAD MOTLEY NEW BRIGHTON NEW HOPE NEW PRAGUE NISSWA NORTH BRANCH NORTH OAKES NORTH SAINT PAUL NORTHFIELD OAK PARK HEIGHTS OAKDALE OKLEE OLIVIA ORONO ORONOCO ORR OWATONNA PARK RAPIDS PELICAN RAPIDS PEQUOT LAKES PIPESTONE PLYMOUTH PRINCETON PRINSBURG PRIOR LAKE REDWOOD FALLS RICHFIELD ROBBINSDALE ROCHESTER ROGERS ROSEAU ROSEMOUNT ROSEVILLE ROYALTON RUTHTON S INTL FALLS SAINT BONIFACIUS SAINT CLAIR SAINT CLOUD SAINT JAMES SAINT JOSEPH SAINT LOUIS PARK SAINT PAUL SAINT PETER SARTELL SAUK RAPIDS SAVAGE SHAKOPEE SHOREVIEW SILVER LAKE SLEEPY EYE SOUTH SAINT PAUL SPICER SPRING GROVE SPRING PARK ST CHARLES ST LOUIS PARK STILLWATER STORDEN THIEF RIVER FALLS TRACY VERNDALE VIRGINIA WACONIA WALDORF WALKER WASECA WAYZATA WELLS WEST SAINT PAUL WHITE BEAR LAKE WILLMAR WINDOM WINONA WOOD LAKE WOODBURY WORTHINGTON WYOMING YOUNG AMERICA ZIMMERMAN COUNTY YELLOW MEDICINE WRIGHT WINONA WILKIN WATONWAN WASHINGTON WASECA WADENA SWIFT STEELE STEARNS SIBLEY SHERBURNE SCOTT SAINT LOUIS ROSEAU ROCK RICE RENVILLE REDWOOD RED LAKE RAMSEY POPE POLK PIPESTONE PENNINGTON OTTER TAIL OLMSTED NOBLES NICOLLET MOWER MORRISON MILLE LACS MEEKER MCLEOD MARTIN LYON LESUEUR LAKE LAC QUI PARLE KOOCHICHING KANDYOHI JACKSON ITASCA ISANTI HUBBARD HOUSTON HENNEPIN GRAFTON GOODHUE FREEBORN FARIBAULT DOUGLAS DAKOTA CROW WING COTTONWOOD COOK CLEARWATER CLAY CHISAGO CHIPPEWA CASS CARVER BROWN BLUE EARTH BELTRAMI BECKER ANOKA AITKIN