Explaining Trump’s Appeal, Part 2
by Mike Kimel
Explaining Trump’s Appeal, Part 2
Last week I had a post looking at Trump’s appeal to a large segment of the electorate from an economic perspective. I noted that growth of real GDP per capita in the United States has been very, very slow since the year 2000. Even the recovery (say, from 2010 to the present) has been dismal from a historical perspective.
Today I want to discuss Trump’s appeal to some from a perspective of immigration. This is a complex issue, even in Trump’s mind. That means it can be sliced many different ways, which means it will require a few posts. All of which is to say, if I’m not covering your favorite immigration-related Trumpism in this post, please be patient.
To begin, here are figures for employment, population, and percentage of the population that is foreign born (see slide 3). I used the first and third columns to also calculate the native born and foreign born population.
The data can then be modified to show the annualized change over a ten year period:
This table tells a few stories. The first is that population was increasing at a faster and faster rate through 1980. Since then it has continued to increase, but at a slowing rate. The second thing we note is that employment changes followed the same pattern as population changes.
But then things get very interesting. From 1950 to 1960, the native born population outpaced job growth. However, it wasn’t a problem for the native born population since the foreign born population shrunk at the same time. In every other decade through the year 2000, job creation outpaced the increase in the native born population. But from 2000 to 2010, job creation was just north of zero, and certainly slower than the rate of increase of the population (both as a whole and native born).
Now, look at the foreign born population. From 1950 to 1970, it either shrunk or grew slowly. Since 1970, however, the foreign born population has increased at a much faster rate than the native born population. Since 1970, the foreign born have taken up the slack between the number of jobs created and the natural increase in the native born population.
But in the last decade, something changed. Though job creation was too slow to employ the native born population, the foreign born population continued to increase rapidly. In other words, the foreign born increase added to competition for a smaller number of jobs. So the notion that immigrants are simply doing the jobs Americans won’t do may have been more or less generally true for a few decades. It probably wasn’t true since GW took office, though. (Sure, the native born population may skew older and include an increasing number of retirees, but the Millennials are now a larger cohort than the Baby Boomers.)
There is another really cool thing we can do with the data which will help us tell more stories. For example, does a more rapid population increase in one decade correlate with faster job growth over the next decade? Do results change if the population is domestic or foreign born? Here’s a little table answering those questions:
So, how do we interpret this? Well, the correlation between ten year changes in the population and the ten year changes in employment that occur a decade later is about .45. That is to say, in general, the bigger the increase in the population during a given decade, the bigger the increase in the number of people employed over the following or next decade. The correlation is, in fact, quite a bit higher when we use the native born population. In other words, the greater the increase in the native born population over a ten year period, the faster the increase in the number of jobs over the subsequent ten years.
The last row, however, points to a problem. The change in the foreign born population is negatively correlated with employment figures a decade later. Put plainly, over the period for which we have data, the bigger the increase in the foreign born population in a given decade, the fewer jobs were created in the next decade.
Knowing how the commentariat works, it occurs to me that someone is going to state that the decrease in the foreign born population in the first decade in our sample drives the negative results on the last row, so the second column of the table leaves out the 1950-1960 period. The results are, if anything, stronger.
The second issue that someone will try to use to beat down the results in comments is that correlation is not causation, even if we are correlating series where one occurs before the other. That, of course, is a correct observation. But there is a converse that is also true – if the the correlation between series X in a given period and series Y ten years later is negative, it is hard to construct a story where more X generates more Y. In the period for which we have data, immigration has not, on the whole, created jobs.
Now, these results deal with aggregates. There are, of course, many examples of immigrants creating jobs. However, on a grand total, over the period for which we have employment figures, the foreign born population has not been a growth driver. That said, in periods where job creation exceeds the natural increase in the domestic born population, immigration doesn’t generate much friction. But that isn’t the case at present.
My next post on the series will add a bit more data, use it to explain the results seen in tables two and three above, and tie that explanation into the proposed Great Wall of Trump along our southern border.
Mike:
Interesting analysis basis. “The last row, however, points to a problem. The change in the foreign born population is negatively correlated with employment figures a decade later. Put plainly, over the period for which we have data, the bigger the increase in the foreign born population in a given decade, the fewer jobs were created in the next decade.”
Correlation might not translate into causation; but, it does point in a direction for further examination. I am interested in seeing what you find.
” So the notion that immigrants are simply doing the JOBS AMERICANS WON’T DO may have been more or less generally true for a few decades. It probably wasn’t true since GW took office, though. ” (my emphasis)
Over and over pro labor advocates attempt to get across the notion, the concept that these job are jobs Americans won’t do FOR SUCH LOW, LOW PAY. This may not be front and center in the consciousnesses of progressives who typically (totally) miss out on how badly a two-tier, RICH COUNTRY WORKERS/ POOR COUNTRY WORKERS labor market afflicts especially low skilled, rich country workers (American raised) WITHOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING …
… how badly it crashes for rich country workers to set labor’s price by the least the monopsonist employer can get away with paying poor country workers whose bottom will-take wage (economists call it their reserve wage) may be half American born workers’ reserve.
Note bene: A purely rich country workers labor market WITHOUT collective bargaining will pay (substantially) lower wages than a split rich country/poor country workers labor market WITH collective bargaining.
[BOX]
There’s a scene in the 1972, blaxploitation movie Super Fly where one character praises on the other’s luxury diggs: “It’s the American dream … eight-track, color TV in every room.”
How about an earlier version of the “American dream”: flush toilet down the hall; electric light in every room – we’re going to save up for a radio? Sounds worth stacking shelves for 40 hour or hacking, a-away back a-when that was the best in history that working persons ever had it – in 1916.
That’s makes for about $200 a week in today’s living standards. Nobody American raised, 100 years later, wants to work for $400 a week. LBJ’s minimum wage was $440 a week, almost 50 years ago (at half 2016’s per capita income).
[BOX]
immigration without collective bargaining representation has been a disaster for my gang — ask one of us the next time you see an American raised Chicago cab driver (if you can find one). Ask a American raised fast food worker in Chicago if you can find one. Ask one of 100,000 out of my estimate 200,000 gang age, minority males in Chicago if they would gladly stack supermarket shelves for $800 a week instead of $400 (thanks to Walmart imposed two-tier contracts).
The Great Dropout!
Chicago is 40/40/20 white, black, Hispanic — the first 80 of which are American raised and in no mood to spend their short lives on earth slaving for chump change. The beauty of collective bargaining is you know you have squeezed the economy (and the consumer) of your era for as much as it is capable of paying — can’t fee bad about that. Collective bargaining also relieves progressive of guesstimating what labor market (meaning the consumer) will pay — collective bargaining takes care of that topic, as it were on auto-pilot.
[snip]
As long as nobody else talks about re-unionization (as the beginning and the end of re-constituting the American dream) — nobody thinks it is possible to talk about …
… or something.
Easy as pie to make union busting a felony in our most progressive states f(WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) — and then get out of the way as the first 2000 people in the many telephone directories re-define our future.
[snip]
Trouble with the wall, it is fighting the “old war’. America became oversaturated in 2007 and then the slow reversal started. The new war is on the seas. The wall is a failure and it shows.
Fwiw, the problem with foreign born population starts after the BW’s peace was broken in the early 70’s.
Well done, Mike. It may help to add that the Immigration Act of 1965 divides this subject into a ‘before and after’ framework. Plus, in 1935, all types of immigration were at an all time low. So, up until the Immigration Act of 1965, there was a 30 year period that culminated with the highest rates of general and broad-based prosperity of all time, anywhere.
And it may also be worth mentioning that the Renaissance period in Europe is widely believed to have been enabled by plagues which thinned the population by an estimated 25%. Obviously too, there is a simple truth where the totality of resources divided by fewer people allows for increased prosperity. However, such truths have been routinely ignored by politicians who put citizens into voting blocs based on color, ethnicity, and etc.
i think Trump’s appeal was much simpler…he represented telling mainstream US politics & politicians to go f*ck themselves, and that’s an idea that resonates with most Americans, myself included…now that he’s actually trying to talk right wing issues, people will tire of him quickly…
Well, I previously have said that this series is the worst thing ever posted on AngryBear.
But after Trump’s economic speech today, I have to go farther.
Yes, the middle class and below are in trouble. Trump has no intention of changing that at all. It was clear to people with IQs above double digits the day he announced his run. Somehow, it has led to people trying to make him into some sort of populist.
His economic plan that he announced today is such that no one in the middle class or below will do anything but go backwards. There is not one single thing that would lead even an imbecile to think he is appealing to those people on an economic basis.
Except, for one thing. If they are the most stupid human beings in the world and can accept this supply side bs once again, then there might be a case. Course, I personally believe that the only reason anyone in this class would believe this garbage as populist, are because they are at the same level of ignorance as your basic racist. And strangely enough, those are the same people.
This series would be an abortion at Heritage.com.
It is beyond belief it is here.
Run,
Thanks. I’m interested too, to be honest.
Dennis Drew,
Wages will figure into my next post in this series.
The Rage,
When I mentioned Trump’s Wall, I also meant the policies related to it. What is “BW” mentioned in your comment? Apologies, but I did not follow,
Ron LaPan-Love,
Tentatively agree about the 65 Act. I don’t know enough about the Renaissance to have a useful perspective about how it relates to the Black Plague though.
Rjs,
In my first post on this topic, I tried to make the same point that you mae in more eloquent fashion, namely that when a system is broken, thumbing one’s nose at the political class can make sense. The pity is that the one guy really thumbing his nose (more than Bernie by quite a bit) is also pursuing some irrational policies of his own.
EMichael,
I can tell you are going to get very exercised by the next post on this topic. FWIW, I probably also will have another post on another topic coming out before then and I dare say you might get the vapors.
Mike,
I have had them for years. They really flair up when I read some apologist trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
At this point, anyone who believes Trump’s appeal has anything to do with his supposed appeal to the working class is beyond help.
You have now moved in right next to this cretin.
And you should be, and will be, ignored by people who can actually think.
MK when I look at the FRED civilian employment chart from 1950 to 2016 it shows the shaded areas representing all past recessions. If you look at the relative distance between those recession gaps you can see that we are due for another recession…I also read today that robots are being redied to take about 1.8 M jobs in the jobs market very soon…IMHO if we do not attempt to do what Trump wants to do economically we will have no choice to only exist as a highly debted socialized republic-democracy to the likes of a Jeremy Corbin socialism will not be very well liked by most…
On a site called ‘Truthout’, I read a good many comments yesterday, and now, after reading the comments here, a pattern emerged in my mind. I don’t however have any data or studies to reinforce this, it is just a thought that surfaced for no clear reason, but I think I’m becoming aware of a correlation between commenters who are insecure about their intellect…and their propensity for using over-simplifications, generalities, exaggerations and hyperbole, unsupported claims, stereotypes, and the like. They also though, with alarming frequency, use certain words to insult large groups of people, words such as ‘imbecile’ and ‘stupid’. And thus, I suppose, they feel less stupid themselves by a comparison that elevates their status by the millions., or so they seem to believe. So, presumably, if one elevates one’s self thus, often enough, one might eventually become convinced of just about anything. This is then… an effort to brainwash one’s self.
The pattern is not however that simple. Ironically, these commenters, who I am trying not to stereotype here, but instead trying to fit into a cohort, typically leave a trail of solecisms in their writing. They, for example, struggle with simple differences between verbs such as ‘is’ and ‘are’. Then too, these ‘compensating commenters’ often times don’t seem to known the subtle differences between terms such as ‘farther’ and ‘further’, and this, I think, might be an important clue. These types subtleties are after-all… widely regarded as what differentiate the ‘stupid’ from the ‘smart’. So, hypocrisy tends to be a tell-tale sign of this self-induced brain-washing attempt.
As it turns out though, there is more to this. This cohort also frequently uses the word ‘ever’. As in ‘worst ever’, and thereby these poor damaged souls suggest to themselves that they know all things back to the beginning of time. But of course, if a person could know so much…how could they not see how poorly written their comments tend to be?
Obviously then, some delusional behavior plays a role, but, these delusions do not appear to be fully sufficient. That insufficiency clearly expressed by the insults of millions of others not being enough to relieve the commenter of his sense of inferiority. Which then leads to an intensified effort to convince himself that his apperceptive mass extends back to include everything, or everyone… ‘ever’. In other words, his insults of those who he disagrees with, and who are currently alive and on this planet, do not satisfy his needs. Accordingly, he reaches back in time to insult all who ‘ever’ lived. These extreme instances though are not always necessary, but must occasionally be resorted to, so it seems.
So…while salient hypocrisy might be the common denominator hereto, the pattern that is emerging is more complicated than that, much ‘too’ complicated in fact. Which, leads me to conclude that maybe I am investing too much time in what most folks would simply shorten down to the word ‘jerk’. hehe
Ray, that has to be the worst blog comment ever. 😉