The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611): Potential Labor Market Effects of the Guest Worker Program

Congressional research reportDec 18, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL33772

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of

2006 (S. 2611): Potential Labor Market Effects

of the Guest Worker Program

December 18, 2006

Gerald Mayer

Economic Analyst

Domestic Social Policy Division

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006

(S. 2611): Potential Labor Market Effects of the Guest

Worker Program

Summary

In the 109th Congress, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive

Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which would have created a new H-2C guest

worker program. The 110th Congress may consider similar legislation.

The guest worker program included in S. 2611 would allow up to 200,000

foreign workers into the United States annually. An employer would have to pay an

H-2C worker the greater of the “actual” wage paid by the employer to other workers

who do the same kind of work and have similar experience or the “prevailing” wage.

Employers would be prevented from hiring H-2C workers if the area unemployment

rate for unskilled workers averaged more than 9% for the previous six months. The

language in S. 2611 would allow employers to hire skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled

workers, but not agricultural workers or certain types of skilled workers. The kinds

of jobs filled under the H-2C program could be similar to the kinds of jobs filled

under an existing (H-2B) program, which is used mainly to hire lower-skilled

workers.

Initially, an increased supply of lower-skilled foreign workers could be expected

to lower the relative wages of lower-skilled U.S. workers. If the H-2C program were

enacted, an increased supply of lower-skilled foreign workers may have the greatest

impact on young, native-born minority men and on foreign-born minority men in

their early working years. In 2005, lower-skilled U.S. workers were mainly white,

non-Hispanic males under the age of 45. But a disproportionate number of these

workers were young (16 to 24), minority (black or Hispanic) men. The

unemployment rate among young, native-born minority men tends to be higher than

among similar nonminority men. In 2005, almost a fifth of lower-skilled workers

were foreign born, and a disproportionate number of these were minority (nonwhite

or Hispanic) men in their early working years (25 to 44). Foreign-born minority men

in their early working years tend to earn less than similar native-born workers.

In response to an initial decline in the relative wages of lower-skilled workers

employers may hire more lower-skilled workers and fewer skilled workers. Thus, the

initial widening of the wage gap may narrow over time. Other factors — such as

technological change, trade, saving and investment, education and training,

demographic changes — may also affect the wages of U.S. workers.

The H-2C program could be used by employers to meet seasonal demand, to

hire foreign workers at full employment, or to fill jobs when there is a mismatch in

a geographic area between the skills demanded and the skills available. In each case,

U.S. workers may not be available at the wages offered. They may or may not be

available at higher wages.

If employers are not able to hire qualified U.S. workers in high unemployment

areas (i.e., more than 9%), there may be a mismatch between the skills available and

the skills employers need. This report will be updated as warranted.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Proposed H-2C Guest Worker Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Effects of a New Guest Worker Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CBO Estimates of the Impact of the H-2C Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Characteristics of Competing Lower-Skilled U.S. Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

All Lower-Skilled Workers Compared to the Total Civilian

Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Foreign-Born, Lower-Skilled Workers Compared to All

Lower-Skilled Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

High School Dropouts Compared to All Persons With No More

than A High School Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Research on the Effect of Immigration on Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Economic Framework For Understanding the Potential Labor Market

Effects of a New Guest Worker Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Effects of the 9% Area Unemployment Trigger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix A. Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Current Population Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Confidence Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix B. Demographic Characteristics of Persons With Less than a

High School Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix C. Areas Potentially Affected by the 9% Unemployment Trigger

in S. 2611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Tables

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Labor Force in 2005,

by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2. Employment of Lower-Skilled, Foreign-Born Workers in 2005,

by Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3. BLS Employment Projections, 2004-2014, by Occupation . . . . . . . . . 10

Table B1. Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Labor Force in 2005,

by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table C1. Labor Force Size and Unemployment Rates in 2005,

by Metropolitan Statistical Area and Level of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Act of 2006 (S. 2611): Potential Labor

Market Effects of the Guest Worker Program

Introduction

In the 109th Congress, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive

Immigration Reform Act of 2006.1 The 110th Congress may consider similar

legislation. S. 2611 included provisions to improve border security and the

enforcement of immigration law. The bill would have also created legalization

programs for unauthorized aliens, increased existing limits on legal immigration, and

created a new H-2C guest worker program.

This report examines some potential labor market effects of the guest worker

program included in S. 2611. The report begins with a description of the program.

Next, the report describes some characteristics of lower-skilled U.S. workers with

whom many H-2C guest workers may compete. The report then examines some

potential labor market effects of an increased supply of lower-skilled foreign workers

on competing U.S. workers (i.e., workers in the United States who have similar skills

as H-2C workers). Finally, the report examines some possible effects of a provision

in S. 2611 that would prevent employers from hiring H-2C workers if the area

unemployment rate for unskilled workers averages more than 9% for the previous six

months.

The Proposed H-2C Guest Worker Program

S. 2611 would allow employers to hire up to 200,000 H-2C guest workers a

year.2 H-2C workers could be hired to fill skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled jobs, but

employers could not use the program to hire agricultural workers or certain skilled

S. 2611 was approved by the Senate on May 25, 2006. On Dec. 16, 2005, the House

approved H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control

Act of 2005. H.R. 4437 would not create a new guest worker program. For more

information on these bills and other immigration legislation in the 109th Congress, see CRS

Report RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by

Andorra Bruno; and CRS Report RL33181, Immigration Related Border Security

Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Blas Nuñez-Neto and Janice Cheryl Beaver.

Under S. 2611, unauthorized workers who have been in the United States since Jan. 7,

2004, and meet certain conditions may be able to obtain H-2C visas. The 200,000 annual

cap on H-2C visas would not apply to these workers.

CRS-2

workers.3 The H-2C program would prohibit employers from hiring guest workers

in areas with high unemployment (i.e., more than 9%) among unskilled workers. S.

2611 defines the area unemployment rate as the unemployment rate in Micropolitan

Statistical Areas or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). These areas are defined

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).4 S. 2611 defines unskilled

workers as persons with no more than a high school education.

Under S. 2611, to get an H-2C visa an individual would have to have a job offer

from a U.S. employer who meets the requirements of the act. Before hiring a foreign

worker, an employer would first have to try to recruit a U.S. worker.5 An employer

would have to offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is qualified and

available. An employer would also have to file a petition with the Secretary of

Homeland Security in which the employer states that the employment of a foreign

worker will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of U.S. workers

who are “similarly employed.”

Once an H-2C worker is hired, an employer would have to pay the worker either

(1) the actual wage paid by the employer to other workers who do the same kind of

work and have similar experience or (2) the prevailing wage, whichever is greater.6

Under an existing (H-2A) program, employers may hire foreign workers to perform

temporary agricultural work. The H-2A program does not have an annual cap. For more

information on the H-2A program, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy

Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.

The H-2C program in S. 2611 would not apply to certain skilled workers who can enter the

United States under existing visas. For example, the H-2C visa would not apply to persons

covered by the H-1B program, which is for persons in specialty occupations (generally,

occupations that require the application of specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree

or its equivalent). Nor would the H-2C program apply to persons covered by the L, O, or

certain other visas. The L visa applies to intracompany transfers of executives, managers,

or workers with specialized knowledge. The O visa applies to persons with “extraordinary

ability” in science, business, education, the arts, or athletics or who have a record of

“extraordinary achievement” in the motion picture or television industry.

An MSA is a geographic area that consists of at least one urban area with a population of

50,000 or more and adjacent areas that have a high degree of economic and social

integration. A Micropolitan Statistical Area consists of at least one urban area with a

population of 10,000 to 50,000 and adjacent areas with a high degree of economic and social

integration. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Metropolitan Statistical Areas,

Metropolitan Divisions, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Combined Statistical Areas, New

England City and Town Areas, and Combined New England City and Town Areas, OMB

Bulletin 06-01, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/fy2006/

b06-01_rev.pdf], Dec. 5, 2005, p. 2.

S. 2611 defines a “United States worker” as a citizen of the United States; an alien who has

been admitted as a permanent resident or refugee; an alien who has been granted asylum;

or an alien who has been authorized to work in the United States.

If a job is covered by a collective bargaining contract, the prevailing wage would be the

wage covered by the agreement. If the job is not covered by a collective bargaining contract

but is an occupation covered by either the Davis-Bacon Act or the Service Contract Act, the

(continued...)

CRS-3

The H-2C visa would be effective for an initial period of three years and could

be extended for another three years. The visa would be portable; that is, an H-2C

worker could accept a job offer from another U.S. employer, provided the employer

meets the recruitment, wage, and other requirements of the act.

Persons who receive a temporary H-2C visa could adjust to permanent status.

After four years in the United States, an H-2C worker could file a petition for an

employment-based visa.7 At any time, an employer could file a petition on behalf of

a worker for an employment-based visa.8

Effects of a New Guest Worker Program

The 110th Congress may consider a new guest worker program similar to the H2C program approved by the Senate in the 109th Congress. If so, questions will likely

arise about the potential economic effects of such a program. This section begins

with a summary of estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the

effects of the H-2C program on federal spending and the U.S. population. Next, the

section describes some characteristics of lower-skilled U.S. workers with whom

many H-2C workers would likely compete. The section then describes an economic

framework that is useful in understanding the potential labor market effects of a new

guest worker program. Finally, the section considers some possible effects of the

provision in S. 2611 that would prevent employers from hiring H-2C workers if the

area unemployment rate for unskilled workers averages more than 9% for the

previous six months.

CBO Estimates of the Impact of the H-2C Program

According to estimates by CBO, the H-2C program in S. 2611 would raise direct

federal spending by $4.1 billion from 2007 to 2016. Most of this spending ($3.9

billion) would be for Medicaid benefits. CBO also projects that the H-2C program

would increase the U.S. population by 3.3 million persons from 2007 through 2016.

The projection includes both workers and their dependents (including children born

to new entrants after they arrive in the United States). Of the 3.3 million increase,

(...continued)

prevailing wage would be the wage that applies under those acts. If a job is not covered by

a collective bargaining contract or either the Davis-Bacon or Service Contract Acts, the

prevailing wage would be based on wage data for the occupation from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) or, if BLS does not have wage data that applies to the occupation, on data

from another survey approved by the Secretary of Labor. For descriptions of the Davis

Bacon and Service Contract Acts, see CRS Report RL32086, Federal Contract Labor

Standards Statutes: An Overview, by William G. Whittaker.

For an explanation of employment-based visas, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S.

Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

The spouses and children of H-2C workers would be able to enter the United States under

a different visa (H-4).

CRS-4

CBO estimates that a half million persons would have entered the United States

illegally under current law.9

Characteristics of Competing Lower-Skilled U.S. Workers

The H-2C program in S. 2611 would allow up to 200,000 guest workers into the

United States each year. These workers would compete with U.S. workers and,

eventually, with previously admitted H-2C workers. The language in S. 2611 would

allow employers to hire skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled workers. However, the

kinds of jobs filled under the program may be similar to the kinds of jobs filled under

an existing (H-2B) program, which is used mainly to hire lower-skilled workers.10

Also, S. 2611 includes a provision that would prevent employers from hiring H-2C

workers in areas with high unemployment among unskilled workers. Thus, the rest

of this report focuses on the potential labor market effects of the proposed H-2C

program on competing lower-skilled workers. This section of the report follows S.

2611 and defines lower-skilled workers as persons with a high school education or

less. The definition of unskilled workers does not include agricultural workers (i.e.,

because the H-2C program in S. 2611 would not apply to agricultural workers).

This section compares three groups of U.S. workers:

the total civilian labor force;11

all lower-skilled workers; and

lower-skilled, foreign-born workers (a subset of all lower-skilled

workers).

The description of U.S. workers is based on data from the Current Population

Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 55,500 households conducted

by the U.S. Census Bureau for BLS.12 In the CPS, persons with a high school

education include persons with either a diploma or GED (i.e., persons who have

passed General Educational Development tests). See Appendix A for more

information on the CPS.

Congressional Budget Office, S. 2611: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006,

Aug. 18, 2006, pp. 4-7, 22.

Under the H-2B program, employers may hire temporary nonagricultural workers.

Currently, the H-2B program is capped at 66,000 visas annually. The requirements for the

proposed H-2C visa would not be same as the requirements for the H-2B visa. For more

information on the H-2B program, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration: Policy

Considerations Related to Guest Worker Programs.

Persons who are in the labor force are either working or actively looking for work.

In this report, foreign-born persons include both citizens and noncitizens of the United

States. The CPS does not ask noncitizens if they are legal permanent residents,

nonimmigrants who are in the United States temporarily (e.g., guest workers), or whether

they are in the country without authorization. Therefore, in this report, the definition of

foreign-born persons includes legal immigrants, legal nonimmigrants, and unauthorized

aliens.

CRS-5

Table 1 shows that an increased supply of foreign-born, lower-skilled workers

may have the greatest impact on young, native-born minority men and on foreignborn minority men in their early working years. The unemployment rate among

young, native-born minority men tends to be higher than among similar nonminority

men.13 Foreign-born minority men in their early working years tend to earn less than

similar native-born workers.14

All Lower-Skilled Workers Compared to the Total Civilian Labor

Force. In 2005, lower-skilled U.S. workers were mainly white (81.1%), nonHispanic (79.7%) males (56.9%) under the age of 45 (62.7%). However, compared

to the total civilian labor force, a disproportionate number of lower-skilled workers

were black or Hispanic (13.5% and 20.3%, respectively), between the ages of 16 and

24 (19.7%), and male (56.9%).15

Foreign-Born, Lower-Skilled Workers Compared to All LowerSkilled Workers. Some research suggests that new immigrants may compete

mainly with prior immigrants.16 Therefore, this section compares foreign-born,

lower-skilled workers to all lower-skilled workers. A disproportionate number of

lower-skilled workers are foreign-born. In 2005, foreign-born, lower-skilled workers

accounted for 18.6% of all lower-skilled workers. By comparison, foreign-born

workers with more than a high school education accounted for 11.6% of all workers

with more than a high school education.17 Compared to all lower-skilled workers,

foreign-born, lower-skilled workers were disproportionately nonwhite (23.0%),

Hispanic (68.0%), between the ages of 25 and 44 (55.2%), and male (63.8%).

In 2005, the unemployment rate among native-born, lower-skilled minority men (either

black or Hispanic) between the ages of 16 and 24 was 8.5%. Among similar nonminority

men, the unemployment rate was 3.9%. Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current

Population Survey (CPS).

In 2005, foreign-born, lower-skilled minority men (either black or Hispanic) between the

ages of 25 and 44 had median weekly earnings of $440. Similar native-born men had

median weekly earnings of $508. Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population

Survey (CPS).

When answering the question about race in the CPS survey, respondents are allowed to

choose more than one race. This report follows BLS practice and only counts blacks and

whites who selected one race category. Hispanic persons may be of any race. The

comparisons discussed in the text of this report are significant at the 95% confidence level.

See Appendix A for a discussion of confidence levels.

One reason why new immigrants may have a greater effect on the wages and employment

of earlier immigrants is that many new immigrants move to areas where there are large

concentrations of immigrants. James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., The New

Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Washington:

National Academy Press, 1997, pp. 223-224.

In 2005, 11.7 million of 62.6 million lower-skilled nonagricultural workers were foreign

born; 10.0 million of 85.7 million nonagricultural workers with more than a high school

education were foreign-born.

CRS-6

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Labor Force

in 2005, by Type

Characteristic

Number

(in 1,000s)

Gender

Total civilian labor force

Male

80,033

Female

69,288

Total

149,320

All lower-skilled, nonagricultural workers

Male

35,619

Female

26,944

Total

62,563

Foreign-born, lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

Male

7,441

Female

4,225

Total

11,666

Race

Total civilian labor force

White Only

122,291

Black Only

17,013

Other

10,017

Total

149,320

All lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

White Only

50,745

Black Only

8,428

Other

3,390

Total

62,563

Foreign-born, lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

White Only

8,984

Black Only

976

Other

1,706

Total

11,666

Hispanic Origin

Total civilian labor force

Hispanic

19,824

Non-Hispanic

129,497

Total

149,320

All lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

Hispanic

12,725

Non-Hispanic

49,839

Total

62,563

Foreign-born, lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

Hispanic

7,937

Non-Hispanic

3,728

Total

11,666

Percent

53.6%

46.4%

100.0%

56.9%

43.1%

100.0%

63.8%

36.2%

100.0%

81.9%

11.4%

6.7%

100.0%

81.1%

13.5%

5.4%

100.0%

77.0%

8.4%

14.6%

100.0%

13.3%

86.7%

100.0%

20.3%

79.7%

100.0%

68.0%

32.0%

100.0%

CRS-7

Characteristic

Number

(in 1,000s)

Age

Total civilian labor force

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

Total

All lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

Total

Foreign-born, lower-skilled nonagricultural workers

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

Total

Percent

22,290

32,341

36,030

34,402

18,980

5,278

149,320

14.9%

21.7%

24.1%

23.0%

12.7%

3.5%

100.0%

12,331

12,466

14,465

13,483

7,293

2,525

62,563

19.7%

19.9%

23.1%

21.6%

11.7%

4.0%

100.0%

1,635

3,252

3,180

2,222

1,101

275

11,666

14.0%

27.9%

27.3%

19.1%

9.4%

2.4%

100.0%

Source: Calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current

Population Survey (CPS).

Notes: Estimates are for persons age 16 and older and in the civilian labor force. Lower-skilled

workers are persons with no more than a high school education. Employment estimates of lowerskilled workers are for nonagricultural persons. Estimates are monthly averages for calendar year

2005. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

High School Dropouts Compared to All Persons With No More than

A High School Education. Analysts often compare workers who have not

completed high school (i.e., who do not have a diploma or GED) with workers who

have no more than a high school education. Table B1 in Appendix B is similar to

Table 1, except it compares the civilian labor force to nonagricultural workers

without a high school education.

Compared to all lower-skilled workers (from Table 1), more persons without

a high school education (from Table B1) were male (60.7% vs. 56.9%), Hispanic

(37.9% vs. 20.3%), and under the age of 25 (31.7% vs. 19.7%). Over half of foreignborn nonagricultural workers with no more than a high school education had not

finished high school.

CRS-8

Occupations. Column 4 of Table 2 shows that, in 2005, more than half

(57.3%) of foreign-born, lower-skilled nonagricultural workers were employed in

four major occupations: construction, production, building and grounds cleaning, and

food services. In construction, the largest number of workers were employed as

laborers, carpenters, painters, roofers, drywall installers, and carpet installers. In

production occupations, the largest number of workers were employed as assemblers;

metal and plastic workers; sewing machine operators; packaging machine operators;

and meat, poultry, and fish processing workers.

Table 2. Employment of Lower-Skilled, Foreign-Born Workers

in 2005, by Occupation

Number

(1,000s)

Occupation

Construction and extraction

Production

Building and grounds cleaning and

maintenance

Food preparation and serving related

Transportation and material moving

Sales and related

Office and administrative support

Personal care and service

Installation, maintenance, and repair

Management occupations

Healthcare support occupations

Education, training, and library

Protective service

Healthcare practitioners and technical

Business and financial operations

Arts, design, entertainment, sports,

and media

Community and social services

Architecture and engineering

Computer and mathematical

Life, physical, and social science

Legal

Total

Percent

Foreign-Born

All Lower- Foreign-Born, Workers as a Foreign-Born

Skilled Lower-Skilled Percent of All Workers by

Workers

Workers Lower-Skilled Occupation

(1)

(2)

Workers

(4)

(3)

7,117

2,071

29.1%

17.8%

6,963

1,750

25.1%

15.1%

4,315

5,304

6,448

7,247

8,796

2,511

3,090

3,510

1,667

817

1,087

614

895

1,522

1,315

1,170

925

822

484

455

349

297

35.3%

24.8%

18.1%

12.8%

9.3%

19.3%

14.7%

9.9%

17.8%

9.5%

6.9%

10.9%

7.1%

13.1%

11.3%

10.1%

8.0%

7.1%

4.2%

3.9%

3.0%

2.6%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

537

248

318

268

116

115

61,985

11,605

11.5%

15.1%

7.7%

8.7%

9.8%

5.2%

18.7%

0.5%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

100.0%

Source: Calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current

Population Survey (CPS).

Notes: Estimates are for persons age 16 and older and in the civilian labor force. Lower-skilled

workers are persons with no more than a high school education. Employment estimates of lowerskilled workers are for nonagricultural persons. Total employment in Table 2 is less than total

employment in Table 1 because some persons did not report an occupation (e.g., they may have been

in the labor force but unemployed). Estimates are monthly averages for calendar year 2005. Details

may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-9

Column 3 of Table 2 shows that, in the four occupations where over half of

foreign-born, lower-skilled workers were employed, one-fourth or more of the lowerskilled workers were foreign-born. In building and grounds cleaning occupations,

35.3% of lower-skilled workers were foreign born. In construction, 29.1% of lowerskilled workers were foreign born; in production, 25.1% of lower-skilled workers

were foreign born; and in food preparation and serving occupations, 24.8% of lowerskilled workers were foreign born. If employers used the proposed H-2C program

to hire workers for these occupations, the impact on foreign-born workers may be

greater than if the program were used to hire workers for other occupations. If S.

2611 were enacted, some of the workers with whom newer H-2C workers may

compete could be H-2C workers admitted in previous years.

Table 3 shows that, according to BLS employment projections, from 2004 to

2014 employment will increase by 18.9 million jobs (from 145.6 million to 164.5

million, or 13.0%).18 In those occupations that employed foreign-born, lower-skilled

workers in 2005, employment is projected to increase by 17.7 million jobs (from

135.6 million to 153.4 million, or 13.1%). Employment is projected to increase in

all occupations, except production (reflecting a projected decline in manufacturing

employment). But the 17.7 million increase in new jobs is for all jobs, regardless of

the educational attainment of the person holding the job. BLS estimates that, from

2004 to 2014, 6.9 million jobs will be filled by persons with a high school education

or less (an increase from 68.5 million to 75.4 million, or 10.1%).19 The persons who

fill these jobs may be either native-born or foreign-born.

Projections of job growth do not take into account vacancies that may occur in

existing jobs. Employers may replace workers who change occupations or who leave

the labor force (e.g., to return to school, raise children, or retire). Therefore, the

number of job openings by occupation consists of the sum of the number of jobs

created or lost and the number of vacancies caused by workers who change

occupations or leave the labor force.20 According to BLS projections, from 2004 to

Every two years BLS publishes employment projections for the next 10 years. The

projections are made in a series of steps, beginning with estimates of the future size of the

labor force. Projections of the size of the labor force take into account population

projections by Census Bureau. The population projections include estimates of net

international migration. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

“Employment Projections,” BLS Handbook of Methods, at

[http://stats.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch13.pdf], pp. 123-126; Norman C. Saunders, “A

Summary of BLS Projections to 2014,” Monthly Labor Review, v. 128, Nov. 2005, available

at [http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art1full.pdf], pp. 6-7. Mitra Toossi, “Labor Force

Projections to 2014: Retiring Boomers,” Monthly Labor Review, v. 128, Nov. 2005,

available at [http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf], p. 27.

Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational Employment Projections to 2014,” Monthly Labor

Review, vol. 128, Nov. 2005, at [http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art5full.pdf], pp. 71,

79-80.

For information on “replacement needs,” see chapter 5 in Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Projections and Training Data, available at

[http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/home.htm].

CRS-10

2014, there will be 24.5 million job openings in occupations filled by persons with

no more than a high school education.21 The proposed H-2C program could allow

as many as 200,000 foreign workers into the United States annually. The H-2C visa

would be effective for an initial period of three years, with one three-year extension.

Table 3. BLS Employment Projections, 2004-2014,

by Occupation

Occupation

Construction and extraction

Production

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance

Food preparation and serving related

Transportation and material moving

Sales and related occupations

Office and administrative support

Personal care and service

Installation, maintenance, and repair

Management

Healthcare support

Education, training, and library

Protective service

Healthcare practitioners and technical

Business and financial operations

Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media

Community and social services

Architecture and engineering

Computer and mathematical

Life, physical, and social science

Legal

Total

Jobs filled by lower-skilled workers

Total Civilian Labor Force

Projected Employment

(in 1,000s)

Change,

Job

2004

2014

2004-2014 Openingsa

All jobs

7,666

8,597

931

2,439

10,260

10,169

-91

2,811

5,582

6,530

948

2,062

10,739

12,453

1,714

5,981

10,249

11,365

1,116

3,509

13,803

15,082

1,279

5,890

21,149

22,454

1,304

6,803

4,721

5,713

991

2,121

5,683

6,335

652

1,963

8,666

9,639

974

2,618

3,092

4,149

1,057

1,540

7,992

9,589

1,596

3,242

2,999

3,419

420

1,258

6,015

7,562

1,548

2,706

5,736

6,831

1,095

2,105

2,112

2,425

313

699

2,317

2,800

483

928

2,360

2,649

289

809

2,410

3,186

775

1,097

902

1,046

144

354

1,173

1,363

190

326

135,627

153,355

17,714

51,544

68,506

75,424

6,919

24,518

145,612

164,540

18,928

54,680

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment by Occupation, 2004

and Projected 2014, at [http://stats.bls.gov/emp/emptabapp.htm].

a. The number of job openings consists of the sum of the number of jobs created or lost and the

number of vacancies caused by workers who change occupations or leave the labor force.

The 24.5 million projection accounts for 44.8% of all job openings during the 10-year

period. One reason for the large number of job openings in occupations filled by persons

with a high school education or less is that employee turnover in lower-skilled jobs tends

to be greater than in jobs requiring more education.

CRS-11

Within six years, there could be as many as 1.2 million H-2C guest workers in

the United States. Persons who receive an H-2C visa could adjust to permanent

status and become U.S. citizens.22 If most of the annual 200,000 H-2C visas were

issued to lower-skilled workers, they could fill up to 8% of the projected job

openings in occupations requiring a high school education or less.

Earnings. Lower-skilled workers generally earn less than more skilled

workers. In 2005, foreign-born, lower-skilled workers had median weekly earnings

of $400, before taxes and other deductions. This amount compares to median weekly

earnings of $576 for all workers and $438 a week for all lower-skilled workers.

These estimates include both full-time and part-time workers.23

Research on the Effect of Immigration on Earnings. Researchers do

not agree on the effect of immigration on earnings.24 According to George Borjas,

between 1979 and 1995, immigration of unskilled workers (defined as high school

dropouts) reduced the wages of all high school dropouts by five percentage points

relative to the wages of all other workers.25 David Card, on the other hand, has

concluded that an increased supply of less skilled immigrants (also defined as high

school dropouts) has had little impact on the wages of dropouts relative to the wages

of high school graduates. According to Card, the main reason for this finding is that

industries change their methods of production to employ the increased supply of less

skilled foreign workers.26

Because S. 2611 included provisions intended to improve border security and increase

enforcement of immigration law, some H-2C guest workers may be substitutes for

unauthorized workers.

Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).

For a review of research on the labor market effects of immigration on U.S. workers, see

CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Native-Born Workers, by Linda Levine;

and Congressional Budget Office, The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market, Nov.

2005, pp. 19-24.

George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy,

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 82-83.

According to Card, between 1979 and 2001, the wage gap between high school graduates

and dropouts remained relatively steady, but the gap between college and high school

graduates increased. David Card, “Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?” The Economic

Journal, v. 115, Nov. 2005, pp. F307-F315, F321. Also see Ethan Lewis, Local Open

Economies Within the U.S.: How Do Industries Respond to Immigration? Working Paper

No. 04-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, available at [http://www.phil.frb.org], pp.

21-23.

If an increased supply of lower-skilled workers does not affect the relative wages of workers

in different skill groups, it could nevertheless change the distribution of earnings if the

relative number of workers in different skill groups changes. For example, an increase in

the relative number of lower paid (or higher paid) workers could increase earnings

inequality.

CRS-12

Economic Framework For Understanding the Potential

Labor Market Effects of a New Guest Worker Program

The potential labor market effects of a new guest worker program can be

examined from different perspectives: (a) the initial effect of an increased supply of

foreign workers on the wages and employment of competing U.S. workers; (b) the

long-run effect of an increased supply of foreign workers, as U.S. workers and

employers adjust to the initial change in wages and employment; and (c) the effects

that take place over time as other changes (social, economic, and demographic)

occur.

Initially, an increased supply of lower-skilled foreign workers can be expected

to lower the relative wages of lower-skilled U.S workers. In response to the initial

change in wages, employers may hire more lower-skilled workers (because they are

relatively cheaper) and fewer skilled workers (because they are relatively more

expensive). Some employers and workers may move to areas where there are better

investment and employment opportunities. Other factors may also affect

employment and wages; for example, changes in technology, foreign trade, saving

and investment, education and training, and demographic changes.

The effects of a guest worker program may also depend on why U.S. workers

are not available to meet employer demand. Thus, the effects of a guest worker

program would likely differ if employer demand is for seasonal workers, for workers

at full employment, or for workers with skills that are not available in local labor

markets. Employers may be able to fill jobs by offering higher wages. But, at full

employment, higher wages may cause inflation without increasing employment. If

there is a mismatch between the skills demanded by employers and the skills

available, vacancies could be filled by training workers. But worker training can take

time. Qualified workers may not be available soon enough to meet employer

demand.

Economic Analysis. The different perspectives for analyzing the labor

market effects of a guest worker program can be described using standard economic

concepts.

Short-Term and Longer-Term Effects. Economists distinguish between

the short-term and the long-term effects of an increased supply of workers. For an

employer, the common definition of the short-term is a period during which the

quantity of at least one input is fixed and cannot be changed. It is generally assumed

that the fixed input is the stock of capital goods (i.e., buildings and equipment and

associated technology). If the stock of capital is fixed, in the short-term a firm can

CRS-13

only change the quantity of variable factors, principally labor.27 In the long-term, a

firm can change the quantity of both fixed and variable inputs.

Scale Effect. For employers, the stock of capital goods is generally fixed in

the short run. If there is a change in the price of labor relative to the price of capital

or a change in the relative wages of workers with different skills, the scale of

production may change. In the short run, an increased supply of workers can be

expected to lower the wages of competing workers.28 Therefore, if employers used

the H-2C program to hire lower-skilled workers, in the short run, the wages of

competing U.S. workers could be expected to fall relative to the wages of other

workers.29 At the same time, relative wages may rise for workers whose skills are

complements (e.g., supervisors) to the skills of lower-skilled workers.

Substitution Effect. In the long run, employers can change the quantities of

both fixed and variable inputs. In response to a change in the relative prices of

inputs, employers may use relatively more of the factor that has fallen in price.

Holding output constant, employers may substitute the lower-priced factor for other

inputs. Therefore, if the H-2C program increased the supply of lower-skilled

workers, employers may substitute less-skilled labor for both skilled labor and

capital. Employers may hire more lower-skilled workers and fewer skilled workers.

Therefore, in the short run, the wages of unskilled workers may fall relative to the

wages of skilled workers (the scale effect). But, in the long run, employers may

adopt more labor-intensive production methods (the substitution effect). If so, in the

long run, the initial (i.e., short-run) widening of the wage gap between skilled and

unskilled workers may narrow.

In the long run, both labor and capital are mobile. An increased supply of

foreign workers in one geographic area may affect investment decisions and the

behavior of other workers. For instance, employers may move their businesses to

where there is a greater supply of labor. Workers may move to where there is a

greater demand for labor. Thus, an increased supply of workers in one area of the

country may affect employment and wages throughout the economy.

Social, Economic, and Demographic Changes. The scale and substitution

effects of employer demand for labor are useful in explaining how an increased

supply of lower-skilled workers may affect employment and relative wages in the

short run and long run. But the scale effect holds the stock of capital goods constant

Because labor consists of both variable and fixed costs, it is sometimes called a quasifixed factor of production. Fixed labor costs vary with the number of workers employed,

and include hiring and training costs, certain payroll taxes, and fringe benefits. Variable

costs vary with the number of hours worked, and consist mainly of wages. Walter Y. Oi,

“Labor as a Quasi-Fixed Factor,” Journal of Political Economy, v. 70, Dec. 1962, pp. 538539; Daniel S. Hamermesh, Labor Demand, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

1993, pp. 44-48; and Reynolds et al., Labor Economics and Labor Relations, pp. 94-95.

The wages of competing workers may not fall in absolute terms, but they can be expected

to fall relative to the wages of other workers.

For an explanation of how an increase in labor supply may affect wages and employment,

see CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Native-Born Workers.

CRS-14

and the substitution effect holds output constant. Over time, other changes may make

it difficult to identify the effects of an increased supply of lower-skilled workers. For

example, the size and composition of the domestic labor force may change. The

work force may become younger or older. More U.S. workers may finish high school

or go to college. Savings and investment may cause the stock of capital,

employment, and output to grow. Changes in technology, consumer preferences, or

trade may affect the demand for workers with different skills.30 Some changes may

be due, in part, to an increased supply of foreign workers. For example, because of

an increased supply of lower-skilled foreign workers, some U.S. workers may get

more education and training; others may leave the labor force. An increased supply

of lower-skilled foreign workers may also affect the amount, kind, and location of

investment as well as the kinds of technology adopted.

The Availability of U.S. Workers. The labor market effects of a new guest

worker program may also depend on why U.S. workers are not available to meet

employer demand.

Seasonal Demand. Employers may need workers to meet seasonal demand.

An adequate supply of qualified U.S. workers may be available among unemployed

workers or among persons willing to enter the labor force in response to a demand

for temporary workers. Under the proposed H-2C program, an employer would have

to pay a foreign worker the actual wage paid to other workers for the same kind of

work and similar experience or the prevailing wage, whichever is greater. But, in

local labor markets, an adequate supply of workers may not be available at these

wages. Workers may be available from outside the area, but they may not be willing

to travel or relocate for a temporary job. Workers with permanent jobs may not be

willing to leave those jobs for a temporary job. Thus, a guest worker program may

help employers meet seasonal demand by providing a temporary supply of workers.

On the other hand, the availability of guest workers may discourage employers from

raising wages to recruit U.S. workers. A guest worker program may also discourage

employers from adopting different production methods or introducing new

technologies that could reduce the demand for seasonal workers.

A Geographic Mismatch Between the Skills Demanded and Skills

Supplied. In some labor markets, employers may not be able to fill openings if the

skills that are available locally do not match the skills that employers need.31 Foreign

workers may help meet employer demand if qualified U.S. workers are not available

at the wages paid to other workers for the same kind of work or at the prevailing

wage. At higher wages, employers may be able to recruit qualified workers from

outside the local labor market. Alternatively, local workers could be trained to

perform the available work. But training can take time, depending on the kinds of

skills needed. Training may, however, be a longer-term solution to local labor

shortages. Qualified U.S. workers could also be attracted to an area by higher wages.

Technological change consists of improved equipment, the introduction of new products,

and improved methods of production, transportation, and communication.

When there is unemployment because of a mismatch in a labor market between the skills

available and the skills demanded, unemployment is called structural unemployment.

CRS-15

Employers could also relocate to an area where there is an adequate supply of

qualified workers.

Demand at Full Employment. At full employment (whether for seasonal or

year-round work), employers may only be able to hire qualified U.S. workers by

raising wages and hiring workers away from other employers.32 But higher wages

may cause inflation. Therefore, at full employment, foreign workers may help meet

employer demand for labor and help curb inflation. Because H-2C visas would be

effective for three years (and renewable for another three years), the economy may

not be at full employment when the visas expire. But without the H-2C program,

some employers could potentially relocate or outsource work to a country where there

is an adequate supply of labor.

Effects of the 9% Area Unemployment Trigger

S. 2611 included a provision that would not allow employers to hire H-2C

workers if the area unemployment rate for unskilled workers averages more than 9%

for the previous six months. The trigger would not affect the overall limit of 200,000

H-2C visas, which would be available to the rest of the country.

Before hiring an H-2C worker, employers would first have to try to recruit and

hire U.S. workers. In high unemployment areas, the 9% trigger would restrict the

supply of H-2C workers. Thus, in these areas, the potential labor market effects of

the H-2C program may depend on whether U.S. workers are available to meet

employer demand.

In high unemployment areas, employers may be able to hire unemployed

workers, whether at the same wage paid to other workers for the same kind of work

or at a higher wage. However, if employers are not able to hire qualified U.S.

workers, it may be because there is a mismatch in the area between the skills some

employers demand and the skills available. If there is a mismatch, employers would

not be allowed to hire H-2C workers. U.S. workers could be trained to fill the

demand or they could be recruited from outside the local area. Employers could also

alter their method of production to reduce their need for skills that are not available

or they could move to where the skills are available and the unemployment rate is 9%

or lower.

Table C1 in Appendix C shows those areas of the country that may have been

affected by the 9% unemployment trigger if it had been in effect in 2005. The

unemployment rates shown in the table are based on the monthly CPS. If S. 2611

At full employment, there are typically persons who are between jobs (e.g., because they

have quit or been laid off) or persons who have entered the labor force and are looking for

work. Economists call this frictional unemployment.

Full employment is commonly defined as the lowest rate of unemployment that is consistent

with stable prices. This rate may vary over time. CRS Report RL33734, Economic Growth,

Inflation, and Unemployment: Limits to Economic Policy, by Brian Cashell; and CRS

Report RL32274, A Changing Natural Rate of Unemployment: Policy Issues, by Marc

Labonte.

CRS-16

were enacted, BLS estimates of the unskilled unemployment rate may be more

precise than those shown. Column 5 shows the confidence intervals for the

unemployment rates for lower-skilled workers (in column 4). The confidence

intervals show the lower and upper bounds of the estimated unemployment rates.

(See Appendix A for a discussion of confidence levels.) Table C1 follows the

language in S. 2611, and includes agricultural workers in the estimates of the

unskilled unemployment rate.

Table C1 indicates that if the 9% trigger had been in effect in 2005, visas for

H-2C guest workers would not have been issued in approximately 65 Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSAs). The labor force in these 65 MSAs accounted for an

estimated 11.8% of the total labor force of 63.4 million lower-skilled workers. More

than half of the MSAs were in the Midwest and West. In the Midwest, 7 of the

MSAs were in Michigan, 4 in Ohio, and 3 in Illinois.33 In the West, 11 of the MSAs

were in California and 4 were in Washington. Texas had 4 MSAs where the

unemployment rate among unskilled workers was more than 9%.

As the national unemployment rate rises or falls, the number of MSAs that could

be affected by the 9% trigger may also rise or fall. In 2005, the national

unemployment rate was 5.1%. In 2004, unemployment was 5.5%.34 In 2004, BLS

adopted new MSA definitions issued by OMB. Therefore, the unemployment

estimates for 2005 in Table C1 can be compared with estimates for 2004. If the 9%

trigger had been in effect in 2004, employers would not have been able to hire H-2C

workers in approximately 63 MSAs. Compared with 2005, however, these MSAs

accounted for a larger share of the lower-skilled labor force: 13.2% of an estimated

labor force of 63.2 million. Eight of the MSAs were in California, 7 were in

Michigan, 5 in Texas, and 4 each were in Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio.35

Conclusions

If the 110th Congress were to enact a guest worker program like the H-2C

program that was approved by the Senate in the 109th Congress, the initial labor

market effects may be different from the long-term effects. Initially, an increased

supply of foreign workers could be expected to lower the relative wages of

competing U.S. workers. If the program were used mainly to hire lower-skilled

foreign workers, the greatest impact may be on young, native-born minority men and

on foreign-born minority men in their early working years. In response to the initial

change in wages, employers may hire more lower-skilled workers and fewer skilled

workers. Some employers and workers may also move to where there are better

investment and employment opportunities.

Some MSAs cross state lines.

One of the three MSAs in Illinois (the

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island MSA) includes parts of Iowa.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the

Current Population Survey, available at [http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf].

BLS adopted the new MSA definitions effective with the May 2004 CPS. Therefore, the

unemployment estimates by MSA for 2004 are averages for the eight months from May to

December 2004.

CRS-17

An increased supply of foreign workers would likely increase total U.S.

employment and output. But economists do not agree on the effect of immigration

on wages. Other factors — such as technological change, trade, saving and

interment, education and training, and demographic changes — may also affect

wages and make it difficult to identify the effects of an increased supply of foreign

workers.

The effects of a guest worker program may also depend on why U.S. workers

are not available to meet employer demand. The effects would likely differ if

employer demand is for seasonal workers, for more workers at full employment, or

for workers with skills that are not available in the local labor market. Employers

may be able to fill jobs by offering higher wages. But, at full employment, higher

wages may cause inflation without increasing employment. If there is a mismatch

between the skills demanded and the skills available, higher wages may not attract

an adequate supply of qualified workers.

The 9% trigger in S. 2611 may encourage employers to hire U.S. workers. But,

workers may not be available in local labor markets because there is a mismatch

between the skills demanded and the skills available.

CRS-18

Appendix A. Data and Methodology

Current Population Survey

The CPS is a household survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. The monthly

CPS is the main source of labor force data for the nation, including estimates of the

monthly unemployment rate. The CPS collects a wide range of demographic, social,

and labor market information. Approximately 55,500 households are interviewed

each month, either in person or by phone.36

The CPS sample is representative of the civilian noninstitutional population; it

does not include persons on active duty in the Armed Forces or persons in institutions

such as nursing homes or correctional facilities. The survey includes civilian

noninstitutional persons living in group quarters. (Group quarters are living quarters

where residents share common facilities; examples include group homes, fraternities,

or sororities.)37

The labor force includes both employed and unemployed persons. Unemployed

persons are individuals who are not working but who are available and actively

looking for work. Employed persons are individuals who are working for a private

or public employer, are self-employed, or who work 15 hours or more per week as

unpaid workers on a family farm or business. Also counted as employed are persons

who are temporarily absent from work because of illness, bad weather, vacation, job

training, labor-management dispute, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave,

or other family or personal reasons.38

Each month one-fourth of the CPS sample is asked questions about current

earnings. Weekly earnings are reported for wage and salary workers. Weekly

earnings consist of usual earnings before taxes and other deductions, and include tips,

overtime pay, and commissions usually received (at a person’s main job). The

monthly CPS does not collect information on the weekly earnings of persons who are

self-employed.

In this report, the data from the basic monthly CPS are annual monthly averages.

The data for each month for 2005 were combined to calculate annual monthly

averages.

Confidence Levels

Estimates based on survey responses from a sample of households have two

kinds of error: nonsampling and sampling. Examples of nonsampling error include

information that is misreported and errors made in processing collected information.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey:

Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 63RV, Mar. 2002, p. J-8.

Ibid., pp. 1-1, 3-7 to 3-9, 5-4.

Ibid., pp. 5-3, 5-5.

CRS-19

Sampling error occurs because a sample, and not the entire population, of households

is surveyed. The difference between an estimate based on a sample of households

and the actual population value is known as sampling error. When using sample

data, researchers typically construct confidence intervals around population

estimates. Confidence intervals provide information about the accuracy of estimated

values. With a 95% confidence interval and repeated samples from a population,

95% of intervals will include the average estimate of a population characteristic. In

Table C1, the estimated unemployment rate for persons with no more than a high

school education is 7.4%. The confidence interval is between 7.2% and 7.6%.

Because the estimate of 7.4% is based on a sample (and not the entire population) of

persons with no more than a high school education, the actual unemployment rate

may be higher or lower than 7.4%. With a 95% confidence interval, it can be

concluded that the average unemployment rate estimated from repeated samples is

between 7.2% and 7.6%.

CRS-20

Appendix B. Demographic Characteristics of

Persons With Less than a High School Education

Immigration analysts often distinguish between persons with a high school

diploma or GED and persons who have not completed high school. Table B1 is

similar to Table 1 in the text but compares the total labor force with persons who

have not finished high school.

Table B1. Demographic Characteristics of the U.S. Labor Force

in 2005, by Type

Characteristic

Number (1000s)

Gender

Total civilian labor force

Male

80,033

Female

69,288

Total

149,320

All nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

Male

10,933

Female

7,064

Total

17,997

Foreign-born nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

Male

4,131

Female

2,038

Total

6,169

Race

Total civilian labor force

White Only

122,291

Black Only

17,013

Other

10,017

Total

149,320

All nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

White Only

14,566

Black Only

2,293

Other

1,138

Total

17,997

Foreign-born nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

White Only

5,192

Black Only

341

Other

636

Total

6,169

Hispanic Origin

Total civilian labor force

Hispanic

19,824

Non-Hispanic

129,497

Total

149,320

All nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

Hispanic

6,824

Non-Hispanic

11,173

Total

17,997

Foreign-born nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

Hispanic

5,050

Non-Hispanic

1,119

Total

6,169

Percent

53.6%

46.4%

100.0%

60.7%

39.3%

100.0%

67.0%

33.0%

100.0%

81.9%

11.4%

6.7%

100.0%

80.9%

12.7%

6.3%

100.0%

84.2%

5.5%

10.3%

100.0%

13.3%

86.7%

100.0%

37.9%

62.1%

100.0%

81.9%

18.1%

100.0%

CRS-21

Characteristic

Number (1000s)

Age

Total civilian labor force

16-24

22,290

25-34

32,341

35-44

36,030

45-54

34,402

55-64

18,980

65 and over

5,278

Total

149,320

All nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

16-24

5,696

25-34

3,514

35-44

3,494

45-54

2,803

55-64

1,716

65 and over

773

Total

17,997

Foreign-born nonagricultural persons with less than a high school education

16-24

890

25-34

1,788

35-44

1,679

45-54

1,133

55-64

543

65 and over

135

Total

6,169

Percent

14.9%

21.7%

24.1%

23.0%

12.7%

3.5%

100.0%

31.7%

19.5%

19.4%

15.6%

9.5%

4.3%

100.0%

14.4%

29.0%

27.2%

18.4%

8.8%

2.2%

100.0%

Source: Calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the monthly Current

Population Survey (CPS).

Notes: Data are for persons age 16 and over. Persons with less than a high school education are

nonagricultural persons who do not have a high school diploma or GED. Estimates are averages of

the monthly labor force for calendar year 2005. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

CRS-22

Appendix C. Areas Potentially Affected by the 9%

Unemployment Trigger in S. 2611

Table C1. Labor Force Size and Unemployment Rates in 2005, by

Metropolitan Statistical Area and Level of Education

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Metropolitan

Education or Less

Intervals for

Statistical Areas

Number Unemploy- Number Unemploy- Column 4

(MSAs)

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate (1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

United States

149,320

5.1%

48,428

7.4% (7.2%-7.6%)

Estimated Unemployment Rate Over 9.0%

(13.3%Lawton, OK

13.1%

22.6%

32.0%)

(12.6%Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH

250

11.4%

138

17.1%

21.6%)

(10.3%Yakima, WA

139

11.7%

16.2%

22.2%)

(10.5%Visalia-Porterville, CA

180

8.9%

16.1%

21.8%)

Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI

118

11.3%

15.6% (8.6%-22.7%)

Lansing-East Lansing, MI

239

8.9%

15.4% (9.8%-21.0%)

Toledo, OH (Ottawa County not in sample)

325

6.9%

106

14.7% (9.9%-19.6%)

Durham, NC

211

7.5%

14.0% (8.5%-19.6%)

Waterbury, CT

105

10.2%

13.5% (6.9%-20.1%)

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI

151

8.0%

13.4% (7.0%-19.7%)

South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI (Michigan

portion not identified)

167

8.4%

13.0% (7.5%-18.5%)

Waco, TX

165

7.9%

12.9% (7.5%-18.3%)

Albany, GA (Baker, Terrell, and Worth

Counties not in sample)

10.8%

12.9% (5.9%-19.9%)

Bakersfield, CA

357

9.1%

191

12.7% (9.3%-16.1%)

Cedar Rapids, IA (Benton and Jones

Counties not in sample)

7.4%

12.7% (4.8%-20.6%)

Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC

248

9.5%

117

12.6% (8.3%-17.0%)

Tuscaloosa, AL (Greene and Hale Counties

not in sample)

111

7.1%

12.4% (5.7%-19.1%)

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA

182

10.1%

101

12.2% (7.6%-16.8%)

Racine, WI

133

7.9%

12.1% (6.4%-17.7%)

Bremerton-Silverdale, WA

115

7.8%

12.1% (4.4%-19.9%)

Fresno, CA

404

8.5%

173

12.0% (8.5%-15.4%)

Bellingham, WA

118

5.4%

11.8% (4.9%-18.7%)

Salinas, CA

186

7.6%

11.7% (6.8%-16.6%)

Jackson, MS

267

5.5%

11.7% (7.0%-16.3%)

Salem, OR

184

7.8%

11.7% (6.7%-16.7%)

Dayton, OH

414

7.8%

210

11.6% (8.5%-14.7%)

Pueblo, CO

108

8.6%

11.6% (4.7%-18.5%)

Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA

111

6.5%

11.5% (4.8%-18.3%)

Monroe, LA

226

7.9%

122

11.5% (7.4%-15.5%)

Memphis, TN-MS-AR (Arkansas portion

not identified and Tunica County, MS not

611

7.6%

287

10.9% (8.3%-13.5%)

Total Civilian

Labor Force

CRS-23

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

in sample)

Trenton-Ewing, NJ

Rochester, NY

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI

Corpus Christi, TX

Evansville, IN-KY (Gibson County, IN and

Kentucky portion not in sample)

Winston-Salem, NC

Laredo, TX

Beaumont-Port Author, TX

Anniston-Oxford, AL

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA

Stockton, CA

Baton Rouge, LA

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA

Rockford, IL

Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI

Las Cruses, NM

Akron, OH

Lexington-Fayette, KY

Kansas City, MO-KS (Franklin, KS;

Leavenworth, KS; Linn, KS; Bates, MO;

and Caldwell, MO Counties not in sample)

Spokane, WA

Merced, CA

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

Monroe, MI

Eugene-Springfield, OR

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL

Holland-Grand Haven, MI

Johnstown, PA

Kankakee-Bradley, IL

Madera, CA

Altoona, PA

Jacksonville, NC

Louisville, KY-IN (Washington, IN;

Henry, KY; Nelson, KY; Shelby, KY; and

Trimble, KY Counties not in sample)

Topeka, KS (Jackson and Jefferson

Counties not in sample)

Appleton,WI

Lake Charles, LA (Cameron Parish not in

sample)

Wichita, KS

Huntsville, AL

Michigan City-La Porte, IN

Victoria, TX

Provo-Orem, UT (Juab County not in

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate (1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Total Civilian

Labor Force

160

566

2,312

200

6.2%

6.9%

7.1%

6.8%

232

926

100

10.7%

(5.9%-15.5%)

(7.9%-13.6%)

(9.2%-12.1%)

(6.3%-15.0%)

133

152

105

164

106

415

266

379

225

197

104

375

246

8.9%

7.4%

6.7%

7.7%

6.4%

6.9%

6.8%

5.4%

5.9%

7.4%

6.3%

5.1%

157

120

184

180

10.5%

10.4%

10.3%

10.2%

10.1%

10.0%

9.9%

9.8%

(5.0%-16.0%)

(5.4%-15.7%)

(5.3%-15.8%)

(5.3%-15.7%)

(4.9%-16.2%)

(7.0%-13.9%)

(6.4%-14.2%)

(7.2%-13.5%)

(5.3%-15.1%)

(5.8%-14.4%)

(3.9%-16.2%)

(3.4%-16.5%)

(6.8%-13.1%)

(5.3%-14.3%)

1,048

239

108

2,370

174

183

120

142

6.3%

5.6%

6.9%

5.6%

6.8%

7.1%

5.2%

5.1%

5.9%

6.6%

7.3%

6.7%

7.5%

391

705

9.7%

9.6%

9.5%

9.4%

9.2%

(7.6%-11.8%)

(4.9%-14.5%)

(3.6%-15.5%)

(8.1%-11.2%)

(2.8%-16.2%)

(4.4%-14.6%)

(4.6%-14.4%)

(3.4%-15.4%)

(4.2%-14.2%)

(4.1%-14.3%)

(2.8%-15.6%)

(2.4%-16.0%)

545

6.8%

233

9.2%

(6.6%-11.9%)

130

104

5.0%

6.6%

9.2%

(3.8%-14.6%)

(3.6%-14.7%)

124

6.1%

9.1% (3.9%-14.4%)

Estimated Unemployment Rate 9.0% or Less

296

6.7%

129

9.0% (5.4%-12.5%)

185

4.1%

9.0% (3.9%-14.0%)

6.9%

8.9% (3.7%-14.1%)

181

6.7%

102

8.9% (4.9%-12.9%)

189

5.0%

8.9% (3.5%-14.3%)

CRS-24

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

sample)

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC

Lynchburg, VA (Appomattox and Bedford

Counties and Bedford City not In sample)

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IN-IN-WI

(DeKalb, IL; Jasper, IN; and Kenosha, WI

Counties not in sample)

Greenville, SC (Laurens and Pickens

Counties not in sample)

Springfield, MA-CT (Connecticut portion

not identified)

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH

Baltimore-Towson, MD

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ

Kingston, NY

Spartanburg, SC

Anderson, IN

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA

Shreveport-Bossier City, LA (De Soto

Parish not in sample)

St. Louis, MO-IL (Calhoun County, IL not

in sample)

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (Delta

and Hunt Counties not in sample)

Knoxville, TN (Anderson County not in

sample)

Mobile, AL

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA (Grundy County

not in sample)

San Antonio, TX

Tucson, AZ

Indianapolis, IN

Ann Arbor, MI

Scranton-Wilkes Barre, PA

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA

(Haralson, Heard, Jasper, Meriwether and

Spalding Counties not in sample)

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT

Providence-Fall River-Warwick, MA-RI

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX

Johnson City, TN

Roanoke, VA (Craig and Franklin Counties

not in sample)

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

Pittsburgh, PA

Colorado Springs, CO

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate (1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Total Civilian

Labor Force

5.4%

8.9%

(2.9%-15.0%)

104

7.6%

8.8%

(3.4%-14.3%)

4,512

5.9%

1,631

8.8%

(7.8%-9.8%)

198

4.9%

8.8%

(4.2%-13.4%)

329

530

577

1,054

1,340

538

112

131

243

6.0%

5.7%

6.4%

5.6%

4.9%

5.7%

4.7%

4.9%

7.8%

5.6%

134

214

224

439

522

251

8.8%

8.7%

8.6%

8.5%

(5.3%-12.2%)

(6.0%-11.5%)

(6.1%-11.4%)

(6.8%-10.6%)

(6.9%-10.4%)

(6.1%-11.1%)

(2.9%-14.4%)

(3.3%-13.7%)

(3.7%-13.4%)

203

5.7%

8.4%

(4.2%-12.5%)

1,512

437

5.2%

4.7%

597

148

8.4%

8.3%

(6.8%-10.0%)

(5.1%-11.5%)

3,223

5.8%

1,335

8.3%

(7.2%-9.3%)

287

201

5.0%

111

8.2%

(4.5%-11.8%)

(3.9%-12.4%)

881

400

881

225

288

5.2%

5.3%

7.4%

5.3%

4.5%

5.5%

408

159

347

145

8.2%

8.0%

7.9%

(1.8%-14.6%)

(6.1%-9.9%)

(4.9%-11.0%)

(5.9%-10.0%)

(2.7%-13.3%)

(4.7%-11.0%)

2,631

1,038

622

690

143

104

5.2%

4.8%

5.2%

8.1%

5.0%

979

310

236

319

7.9%

7.8%

(6.7%-9.1%)

(5.7%-10.0%)

(5.3%-10.2%)

(5.7%-10.0%)

(3.9%-11.7%)

(2.7%-12.9%)

121

1,636

1,199

287

5.2%

6.0%

5.2%

6.5%

818

500

7.7%

(2.7%-12.7%)

(6.4%-9.0%)

(6.0%-9.4%)

(3.9%-11.5%)

CRS-25

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

Worcester, MA-CT (Connecticut portion

not identified)

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC

(Anson County, NC not in sample)

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY

Boulder, CO

Salt Lake City, UT (Toole County not in

sample)

Olympia, WA

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle

Beach, SC

Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA

Dover, DE

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA

(Yamhill County, OR not in sample)

Denver-Aurora, CO

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT

Fayetteville, NC

Jackson, MI

Bloomington, IN (Owen County not in

sample)

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJDE

Green Bay, WI (Oconto County not in

sample)

Flint, MI

Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN

(Cannon, Hickman and Macon Counties

not in sample)

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH

Austin-Round Rock, TX

Norwich-New London, CT-RI (RI portion

recoded to Providence NECTA)

Wausau, WI

Sacramento — Arden-Arcade Roseville,

New Haven, CT

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO

Canton-Massillon, OH

Longview, TX (Rusk and Upshur Counties

not in sample)

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI

Modesto, CA

Albuquerque, NM

Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX

Des Moines, IA

Charleston-North Charleston, SC

Greensboro-High Point, NC

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate (1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Total Civilian

Labor Force

242

6.2%

107

7.6%

(4.0%-11.2%)

891

348

188

5.5%

5.3%

5.1%

380

131

7.6%

(5.7%-9.5%)

(4.4%-10.9%)

(2.6%-12.5%)

583

132

4.6%

3.9%

225

7.6%

(5.1%-10.1%)

(1.6%-13.6%)

110

2,463

1,771

6.7%

5.7%

5.0%

1,155

540

7.6%

7.5%

(2.2%-13.0%)

(6.4%-8.5%)

(5.9%-9.1%)

(1.8%-13.2%)

1,139

1,320

435

145

152

5.2%

4.8%

5.0%

4.9%

354

440

143

7.5%

7.4%

(5.5%-9.4%)

(5.7%-9.3%)

(4.4%-10.6%)

(2.8%-12.1%)

(2.8%-12.0%)

141

820

5.1%

4.6%

357

7.4%

(2.6%-12.2%)

(5.4%-9.4%)

2,801

4.8%

1,162

7.4%

(6.3%-8.4%)

184

173

4.8%

7.3%

(3.3%-11.2%)

(3.1%-11.5%)

800

2,411

879

4.9%

4.6%

4.9%

342

784

290

7.3%

7.2%

(5.3%-9.3%)

(6.0%-8.6%)

(5.0%-9.3%)

124

6.1%

5.0%

7.1%

7.0%

(2.4%-11.9%)

(1.8%-12.2%)

1,027

308

176

219

5.0%

4.6%

6.5%

392

102

122

7.0%

6.9%

(5.2%-8.9%)

(3.5%-10.6%)

(2.1%-11.9%)

(3.7%-10.2%)

107

144

261

424

162

311

292

496

6.3%

4.7%

4.1%

5.2%

5.0%

3.9%

4.3%

5.2%

128

145

119

221

6.9%

6.8%

6.7%

6.6%

(1.4%-12.4%)

(2.4%-11.2%)

(3.7%-10.0%)

(3.8%-9.7%)

(2.9%-10.4%)

(3.4%-9.8%)

(3.1%-10.2%)

(4.3%-9.0%)

CRS-26

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

Raleigh-Cary, NC

Niles-Benton Harbor, MI

Columbus, OH (Morrow County not in

sample)

Madison, WI

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach,

Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL

Tulsa, OK (Okmulgee County not in

sample)

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island, NY-NJ-PA (Pennsylvania portion

not in sample. White Plains central city

recoded to balance of metropolitan.)

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA

Gulfport-Biloxi, MS

Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MNWI (Wisconsin portion not identified)

Oklahoma City, OK

Syracuse, NY

Savannah, GA

Richmond, VA (Cumberland County not in

sample)

Montgomery, AL

Orlando, FL

Champaign-Urbana, IL (Ford County not

in sample)

El Centro, CA

Fort Smith, AR-OK (Oklahoma portion not

in sample)

Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI

La Crosse, WI (Houston County not in

sample)

El Paso, TX

Portland-South Portland, ME

Fayetteville- Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO

(Madison County, AR and Missouri

portion not in sample)

Birmingham-Hoover, AL

Ocala, FL

Boise City-Nampa, ID (Owyhee County

not in sample)

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL

Fort Wayne, IN

Sioux Falls, SD

Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL

Chattanooga, TN-GA

Bend, OR

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Total Civilian

Labor Force

Number Unemploy(1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

626

3.6%

6.5%

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate

(3)

(4)

217

6.6%

(4.2%-9.0%)

6.6% (0.7%-12.5%)

932

346

4.9%

3.3%

361

107

6.5%

(4.7%-8.3%)

(3.1%-9.8%)

211

201

4.5%

4.7%

6.5%

(2.8%-10.2%)

440

3.8%

170

6.5%

(3.8%-9.1%)

9,171

6,533

1,449

4.7%

4.9%

3.5%

7.5%

3,581

2,671

444

6.4%

(5.8%-7.0%)

(5.7%-7.0%)

(4.8%-8.1%)

(0.7%-12.1%)

1,765

676

299

288

3.9%

3.7%

5.3%

4.4%

554

259

125

141

6.4%

6.3%

(4.9%-7.8%)

(4.2%-8.4%)

(3.2%-9.3%)

(3.5%-9.2%)

656

165

1,081

4.8%

4.9%

4.0%

309

457

6.3%

6.2%

(4.3%-8.2%)

(2.3%-10.1%)

(4.6%-7.8%)

136

2.8%

3.5%

6.2%

(1.2%-11.2%)

(0.6%-11.7%)

107

415

4.4%

4.8%

157

6.2%

(1.6%-10.8%)

(3.5%-8.9%)

121

324

202

2.7%

5.2%

3.5%

157

6.2%

6.1%

6.0%

(1.1%-11.3%)

(3.4%-8.8%)

(1.9%-10.0%)

233

620

125

3.7%

4.2%

4.7%

249

6.0%

5.9%

5.8%

(2.7%-9.4%)

(3.8%-8.0%)

(1.7%-9.9%)

284

1,323

200

131

254

1,985

3.9%

4.2%

5.5%

2.7%

3.4%

3.5%

5.0%

3.9%

114

536

126

812

5.8%

5.7%

5.6%

5.5%

(2.7%-8.9%)

(4.3%-7.1%)

(2.0%-9.5%)

(1.1%-10.1%)

(0.8%-10.4%)

(2.7%-8.5%)

(0.7%-10.3%)

(4.4%-6.7%)

CRS-27

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL

Reno-Sparks, NV

Hickory-Morgantown-Lenoir, NC

(Caldwell County not in sample)

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

(Franklin County , IN not in sample;

Dearborn and Ohio Counties, IN not

identified)

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL

Las Vegas-Paradise, NM

Binghamton, NY

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News,

VA-NC (North Carolina portion not

identified)

Jacksonville, FL

Columbus, GA-AL (Harris County, GA not

in sample)

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR (Perry

County not in sample)

Honolulu, HI

York-Hanover, PA

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DCVA-MD-WV (West Virginia portion not

identified. Reston central city recoded to

balance of metropolitan)

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

Charleston, WV (Clay County not in

sample)

Joplin, MO

Peoria, IL

Springfield, IL

Erie, PA

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

Amarillo, TX (Armstrong and Carson

Counties not in sample)

Lafayette, LA

Janesville, WI

Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL

Harrisonburg, VA

Greeley, CO

Asheville, NC (Haywood and Henderson

Counties not in sample)

Midland, TX

Florence, AL

Ogden-Clearfield, UT

Springfield, MO (Dallas and Polk Counties

not in sample)

Atlantic City, NJ

Total Civilian

Labor Force

Number Unemploy(1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

126

3.3%

233

3.9%

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate

(3)

(4)

5.5%

(1.1%-9.9%)

5.4%

(2.2%-8.7%)

139

4.8%

5.3%

(1.7%-8.9%)

1,071

2,612

857

111

299

4.2%

3.9%

4.5%

5.8%

4.0%

485

1,116

444

147

5.3%

5.2%

(3.8%-6.7%)

(4.4%-6.3%)

(3.8%-6.8%)

(0.8%-9.8%)

(1.0%-9.5%)

(2.6%-7.8%)

738

659

3.8%

3.5%

295

269

5.0%

(3.2%-6.8%)

(3.1%-6.9%)

123

3.9%

4.9%

(1.2%-8.5%)

341

455

224

3.2%

3.0%

153

164

125

4.8%

4.7%

(2.4%-7.3%)

(2.5%-7.2%)

(2.0%-7.3%)

3,012

262

2.8%

2.7%

944

122

4.7%

(3.8%-5.7%)

(2.0%-7.4%)

158

129

175

106

112

476

3.9%

3.2%

4.5%

2.7%

4.1%

2.6%

185

4.7%

4.5%

4.4%

4.2%

(1.2%-8.1%)

(0.8%-8.2%)

(0.9%-8.2%)

(0.0%-8.8%)

(0.7%-7.7%)

(2.2%-6.3%)

123

284

171

112

123

2.6%

4.5%

2.8%

2.6%

2.4%

3.0%

159

4.2%

4.1%

3.8%

(0.3%-8.1%)

(1.9%-6.4%)

(0.3%-8.2%)

(1.1%-7.0%)

(0.2%-8.0%)

(0.1%-7.4%)

204

116

103

168

3.8%

2.4%

2.3%

2.5%

3.7%

3.6%

(0.7%-6.6%)

(0.1%-7.1%)

(0.0%-7.1%)

(0.6%-6.6%)

184

151

2.4%

3.7%

3.5%

(0.5%-6.5%)

CRS-28

Metropolitan

Statistical Areas

(MSAs)

Reading, PA

McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX

Lancaster, PA

Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL

Columbia, SC

Utica-Rome, NY

Naples-Marco Island, FL

Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL

Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL

Total Civilian

Labor Force

Number Unemploy(1,000s) ment Rate

(1)

(2)

222

2.4%

263

2.9%

228

2.8%

217

3.0%

330

2.9%

150

4.7%

156

2.1%

322

1.6%

317

2.2%

Civilian Labor Force

With a High School

Confidence

Education or Less

Intervals for

Number Unemploy- Column 4

(5)

(1,000s) ment Rate

(3)

(4)

130

3.5%

(1.2%-5.7%)

172

3.4%

(1.4%-5.3%)

129

3.4%

(1.2%-5.7%)

125

3.4%

(1.1%-5.7%)

136

3.4%

(1.2%-5.6%)

3.0%

(0.0%-6.0%)

2.9%

(0.3%-5.5%)

109

2.9%

(0.6%-5.1%)

150

2.7%

(0.8%-4.6%)

Source: Calculated by CRS from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).

Notes: Data are for persons age 16 and older and in the labor force. Confidence intervals were calculated at a 90%

level. See Appendix A for a description of confidence intervals. Following BLS practice, Table C1 does not show

estimates of the size of the labor force or the unemployment rate if the estimated size of the labor force is 35,000

persons or less. Estimates of unemployment for persons with a high school education or less are not shown if the

estimate is not statistically significant (i.e., if the lower bound of the confidence interval is less than zero).

Estimates are monthly averages for calendar year 2005. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.