View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

Figure 8. Immigration Impact IndexNote: All 318 counties with an increase in the foreign-born population (aged 10 and older in 1910)equal to or greater than 1,000 are indicated. The bubble size is proportionate to the rate of foreignimmigration.Source: Haines 2004 and authors’ calculations.146We cannot conduct a formal test of this hypothesis since we do not havecounty-level wage data, but we suggest that the pattern displayed in Figure9 is not consistent with an interpretation that the counties below the lineexhibited crowding out. The sizes of the bubbles in the diagram indicatethe magnitude of each county’s immigration impact index. Where theimpact of immigration was the greatest (indicated by large bubbles), wefind that both natives and immigrants had poured into the county. In all ofthe counties below the line, the immigration impact index is quite low (thebubble sizes are small). Only four counties below the line had an impactindex greater than the average index of those above the line. These patternssuggest that the reason for the native outflow from the counties below theline was unlikely to have been due to a proportionately heavy foreign-borninflow. We conclude that the crowding-out mechanisms did not operateduring the Age of Mass Migration in any general way. Instead, nativesand immigrants were both moving to the same high-wage regions. Thesefindings suggest that the immigrant arrivals were not reducing the wagesof resident workers in this period.