Substitution between Immigrants, Natives, and Skill Groups*

George J. Borjas, Harvard University
Jeffrey Grogger, University of Chicago
Gordon H. Hanson, University of California, San DiegoJULY 2011*We thank David Autor for extremely valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We are responsible forany errors.

1
ABSTRACTThe wage impact of immigration depends crucially on the elasticity of substitution between
similarly skilled immigrants and natives and the elasticity of substitution between high school
dropouts and graduates. This paper revisits the estimation of these elasticities. The U.S. data
indicate that equally skilled immigrants and natives are perfect substitutes. The value of thesecond elasticity depends on how one controls for changes in demand that have differentiallyaffected high school dropouts and graduates. The groups are imperfect substitutes under standard
trend assumptions, but even slight deviations from these assumptions can lead to an outright
rejection of the CES framework.

2
1. Introduction
The literature that attempts to measure the labor market impact of immigration grew
explosively in the past decade. This growth was accompanied by a noticeable methodologicalshift. The more recent studies no longer represent atheoretic attempts to measure the correlation
between wages and immigration-induced supply shocks. Beginning with the introduction of thenested CES framework into the immigration context by Borjas (2003), the recent literature
explicitly strives to estimate the various elasticities of substitution that are mainly responsible forthe presence (or absence) of an impact of immigration on the native wage structure. The papers
by Ottaviano and Peri (2011) and Manacorda, Manning, and Wadsworth (2011) in this issue
represent additional efforts to estimate the relevant elasticities in the American and British
contexts, respectively.
Despite the closer link between the empirical work and the underlying factor demand
theory in recent work, there is still a great deal of disagreement on whether immigration has an
impact on the earnings of native-born workers. As an example, Card (2009) argues that theeffects of immigrants on U.S. wages are small, whereas Borjas (2003) and Aydemir and Borjas(2007) suggest the opposite, that recent immigration has reduced U.S. wages, particularly for
low-skilled natives.
Card (2009) notes that there are two elasticities of substitution whose magnitudes are at
the core of the debate. The first is the elasticity of substitution between similarly skilled
immigrants and natives: “If immigrants and natives in the same skill group are imperfect
substitutes, the competitive effects of additional immigrant inflows are concentrated among
immigrants themselves, lessening the impacts on natives” (Card, 2009, p. 2). The impact onnatives could be further weakened if the elasticity of substitution between high school graduates

3and high school dropouts were high. Card (2009, p. 2) continues: “Workers with less than a highschool education are perfect substitutes for those with a high school education. This conclusion
is important because it means that the impact of low-skilled immigration is diffused across awide segment of the labor market (the roughly 60% of the population who are counted as “highschool equivalents” workers) rather than concentrated among the much smaller dropout
population.” The joint findings of imperfect substitution between equally skilled immigrants andnatives and perfect substitution between high school graduates and high school dropouts would
then imply that the impact of immigration on the earnings of native-born workers was small,
despite high immigration rates and downward-sloping labor demand curves.
There is already empirical disagreement on whether similarly skilled immigrants andnatives are imperfect substitutes. Ottaviano and Peri (2011; hereafter, OP) find evidence ofimperfect substitution in the United States, estimating an elasticity of substitution of around 20.
In contrast, Jaeger (1996, revised 2007), Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson, (2008, 2010), andAydemir and Borjas (2007) estimate an effectively infinite elasticity and conclude that equallyskilled natives and immigrants are perfect substitutes.
There is less evidence on the value of the elasticity of substitution between high school
dropouts and high school graduates. Although these two groups are often grouped together as“high school equivalents” in the wage structure literature, there are few explicit tests of thishypothesis. Goldin and Katz (2008) use national-level CPS data and find imperfect substitution
between the two groups, while Card (2009), using a spatial correlation approach, concludes thegroups are perfect substitutes.
In this paper, we revisit the estimation of these elasticities in the U.S. context. To focus
squarely on modeling and estimation issues, we use the same data as OP. Nevertheless, our4results are quite different. In terms of the elasticity of substitution between equally skilled
immigrants and natives, we conclude that the OP data, correctly analyzed, imply that the twogroups are perfect substitutes. In fact, by using a statistically valid set of regression weights andby defining the earnings of a skill group as the mean log wage of the group (rather than theunconventional log mean wage used by OP), we find that the OP data reveal an effectively
infinite substitution elasticity. The evidence thus implies that native workers are exposed toadverse effects from immigration-induced increases in labor supply.
In terms of the elasticity of substitution between high school dropouts and high school
graduates, our findings are more cautionary. Much depends on how one controls for(unobserved) changes in demand that may have differentially affected high school dropouts andhigh school graduates (an issue that does not arise in estimating immigrant-native
substitutability, as in that case one examines wage changes within skill groups). The use of the
CPS wage time series created by Autor, Katz, and Kearney (2008) and employed by Goldin andKatz (2008) leads to the conclusion that the two groups are imperfect substitutes as long as one
accepts the ancillary assumptions about trends in relative demand that are maintained in thosewell-known studies. However, deviations from those assumptions yield unstable estimates. In
some cases, the regressions imply negative (and significant) elasticities, leading to a rejection of
the CES framework. Our take on the evidence, therefore, is simple: Proceed with care. The CES
framework is sensitive to ancillary (and untestable) assumptions about changes in the relative
demand for skill groups, complicating its use as a method for determining whether high school
graduates and high school dropouts are perfect substitutes.

2. Data5
We draw our data from the same sources as OP and use the same rules for constructing
the sample extracts and defining the variables.1 Our replication yields identical summary
statistics as OP; the only exception being the data drawn from the 1960 Census, where ourcounts of workers and average wages in the various cells differ slightly.
We classify workers into the same four education groups (high school dropouts, highschool graduates, workers with some college, and college graduates), and into the same eight
experience groups (1 to 5 years of experience, 6 to 10 years, and so on). These education andexperience categories define a total of 32 skill groups at a point in time.
We impose the same sample restrictions as OP on the individual-level Census
observations. The sample includes individuals who are not residing in group quarters, are aged
18-64 (inclusive), worked at least one week in the calendar year prior to the Census, and have
between 1 and 40 years of work experience (inclusive). The wage is initially measured as
average weekly wage and salary income in the skill group; the count of workers in a cell ismeasured as total annual hours worked by all workers in that cell. We calculate wages andcounts separately for immigrants and natives. OP intended to exclude the self-employed from thecalculation of wages (since self-employed earnings include the return to capital and other nonlabor inputs) and to include them in the count of workers (since the self-employed affect labor
supply). While adapting OP’s coding for our exercise, however, we noted that OP failed to
exclude the self-employed from their calculation of weekly earnings due to a coding error. We

1 Specifically, we use data drawn from the 1960-2000 decennial Censuses, and the 2006 American

Community Survey. We do not wish to imply that the OP construction of the sample is optimal. One particularfeature creates a bias in favor of imperfect substitution between equally skilled immigrants and natives. The OP
sample contains many native-born workers who are 18 years old, are seniors in high school, and (due to the timingof the Census) will receive their high school diplomas within 8 to 12 weeks. Nevertheless, these young adults areclassified as high school dropouts. See Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson (2008) for details.

6follow OP’s intended practice of excluding the self-employed from the wage calculation. Below,
we describe how this discrepancy between our wage measure and OP’s affects the results.

3. The Fragility of Within-Group Immigrant-Native Complementarity
We first test for perfect substitution between equally skilled immigrants and natives. Let
Lnjkt be total hours worked by persons in education group j, experience group k, year t, andnationality group n (F = foreign-born workers, D = native-born workers). The nested CES
framework implies that the total labor input in an education-experience cell is given by!
!!"# !!"#!

!
+ 1 − !!"# !!"#! !/!

, an Armington aggregator of the total supply of foreign-and native-born workers in that cell, with ψjkt being a technology parameter that captures the(potentially) time-varying relative productivity of immigrants and natives. The elasticity of
substitution is σN = 1/(1 - λ). The assumption that the wage equals the value of marginal productimplies that we can test the perfect substitution hypothesis by relating the log relative wage ofimmigrants in a particular skill group to the log relative supply of immigrants in that group:F⎛ w Fjkt ⎞1 ⎛ L jkt ⎞ln ⎜ D ⎟ = φ jkt −ln,
σ N ⎜⎝ LDjkt ⎟⎠⎝ w jkt ⎠(1)

where φjkt = ln [ψjkt/(1 - ψjkt)]. A large value for !! suggests that immigrants and native workers
are close to perfect substitutes, and relative wages would then be uncorrelated with relative
quantities. We approximate φjkt with fixed effects for education-experience groups, educationyear groups, and experience-year groups, whose inclusion we vary across specifications. As in7OP, we estimate the regression separately in samples that include either all workers or only fulltime workers, and either only men or men and women combined.2
Table 1 reports our estimation results for equation (1) using the Census-ACS data
described earlier. Our column (1) of row (1) corresponds to column (1) of row (1) of panel A in
OP’s Table 2. In this specification, which is for male workers, the only regressor is the log ratioof immigrant and native hours worked in a cell. Our coefficient estimate for −1/!! is -0.046(with a standard error of 0.008), as compared to OP’s estimate of -0.053 (0.008). The differenceis due entirely to OP failing to exclude the self-employed (as they had intended to do) in
calculating the average weekly wage of the group. Omitting the self-employed causes theestimated elasticity of substitution to rise from OP’s estimate of 18.8 to 21.7.3
Moving down column (1), we first address the definition of the weights used in the
regression. OP weight the regressions by total employment in an education-experience cell.
However, the motivation for weighting arises from the concern that there may be differences
across observations in the sampling error of the wage ratio used as the dependent variable. As
defined by OP, the dependent variable in equation (1) is the log difference between the average
wages of immigrant and native workers in a cell. The appropriate weight is the inverse of thesampling variance for an observation. Assuming independent sampling, this is given by:−1F⎧
N F (w F )2 N D (w D )2
⎪ ⎡ ⎛ w ⎞ ⎤⎫⎪
ω jkt = ⎨var ⎢ ln ⎜ Djkt ⎟ ⎥ ⎬ = F 2 Djkt D jkt 2 jktD 2jkt F F 2 ,(θ jkt ) N jkt (w jkt ) + (θ jkt ) N jkt (w jkt )⎪ ⎢⎣ ⎝ w jkt ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎭
⎪
⎩

(2)

2 As in OP, the regression in the male sample correlates male wages to male employment counts, while theregression in the male-female sample correlates the average wage in the population to total (i.e., male plus female)
employment counts.
3 From equation (1), a substitution elasticity of 20 implies that an increase in the relative supply of

immigrant workers by 10 log points reduces the relative wage of immigrant workers by 0.48%; at an elasticity of 40
the wage impact is 0.23% and at an elasticity of 50 the wage impact is 0.19%.

8! !
where (!!"#) is the variance of the underlying microdata of wages (in levels) for cell (j, k, t, n);!
!
!!"#is the average wage for the cell; and !!"#
is the number of observations. Row (2) of column(1) in Table 1 shows that the coefficient estimate of −1/!! falls to -0.030 (0.009) simply byusing the correct weights defined in equation (2), implying a substitution elasticity of 33 for men
and 48 for the combined sample of men and women.
If the wage data have a common coefficient of variation, !, across all cells, the weights
simplify to:FD
1 ⎡ N jkt N jkt ⎤ω jkt = 2 ⎢ F.
D ⎥π ⎢⎣ N jkt + N jkt
⎥⎦

(2′)

F
D
!
!
⎤⎦ , the OP+ N jkt
Only if !!"#
= !"!"#!for all j, k, and t does one obtain ω jkt = γ π −2 (1+ γ )−2 ⎡⎣ N jkt

case where the weights are proportional to total employment in the cell.4 However, this requires
immigrants to be represented in equal proportion in all cells, in which case the regression inequation (1) would say nothing about the effect of immigration on wages.
Next, we address the issue of how cell-specific wages are calculated. As noted above, OP
use the log of mean weekly earnings for a particular nationality, skill group, and year. The
standard approach in the literature, however, is to use the mean of log earnings (e.g., Katz andMurphy, 1992; Card, 2001; Card and Lemieux, 2001; Borjas, 2003; Lemieux, 2006; Autor, Katz,
and Kearney, 2008). By Jensen’s inequality, the log mean wage and the mean log wage are not
the same. The mean log wage corresponds to the geometric mean wage, which has the
4 The OP weight is the total number of hours employed by immigrants and natives in the cell, rather than

the total number of observations in the cell. The two would be perfectly correlated if Census sampling was
proportional to the population and hours worked were constant across workers.

9interpretation of a marginal product index in which weights are each worker’s share of total
hours worked. Log mean wages have no such interpretation. If the dependent variable inequation (1) were the difference in mean log immigrant and mean log native wages, theappropriate sampling weight is given by:−1⎡ σ 2w,Fjkt σ 2w,Djkt ⎤ω jkt = ⎢ F +
,
D ⎥
N jkt
⎢⎣ N jkt
⎥⎦

(2′′)

!
where !!,!"#$
is the variance in log wages for cell (j, k, t, n). Row (3) of column (1) shows thatusing average log wages and the correct weight yields a regression coefficient of -0.008 (0.016).
The coefficient is no longer statistically significant, and has an implied substitution elasticity of
125 for men and 500 in the combined sample of men and women. In short, the presumed
complementarity between equally skilled immigrants and natives found in the simple
specification favored by OP disappears when one uses a more common measure of the wage gap
between immigrants and natives and applies a statistically valid sampling weight.
Finally, we turn to the issue of which fixed effects should be included in the regression
model. Because the dependent variable in equation (1) is the difference in immigrant-native log
wages, factors that affect immigrant and native labor demand equally are automatically removed
from the equation. Remaining factors that affect immigrant-native relative wages include
differences in the composition of immigrants and natives within skill groups and how thesedifferences evolve over time (as well as how relative labor demand for the groups shifts as the
sample composition changes). Consider immigrant and native high school dropouts. Native highschool dropouts typically quit school during their high school years. In contrast, immigrants in10
the high school dropout category include sizable numbers of individuals with no or little
schooling (reflecting differences in educational standards in the immigrants’ countries of origin).
Such compositional differences, which change over time with changes in immigrants’ countriesof origin, may produce a spurious correlation between the observed immigrant-native wage ratio
and the observed immigrant-native employment ratio.
One solution to changes in within-group skill composition is to control for skill-groupand period fixed effects. Columns (2) and (6) of Table 1 introduce the period fixed effects. In
row (3), the regression coefficient is 0.008 (0.021) for all male workers and -0.020 (0.007) for
full-time make workers, which imply effectively infinite substitution elasticities. Note that theadjusted R-squared rises from 0.001 to 0.103 in the regression for male workers, supporting theinclusion of the period dummies. Adding education-experience dummies, in columns (3) and (7),and year-education group and year-experience group controls, in columns (4) and (8), yields
similar results and increases the adjusted R-squared to 0.920. In other words, there is ample
statistical ground for including the fixed effects in the regression.
In sum, the results reported in Table 1 show that OP’s finding of imperfect substitution
between immigrant and native workers is fragile. Reading across the columns in Table 1, thesimple inclusion of period fixed effects is generally sufficient to drive most of the regression
coefficients to zero, yielding infinite substitution elasticities. Moreover, even if we do notinclude any fixed effects, we obtain effectively infinite substitution elasticities by correcting forerrors in the OP specification: failure to exclude the self-employed from the calculation of mean
wages, the use of log mean wages instead of mean log wages, and the use of inappropriate
regression weights. Each of these errors has the effect of making the correlation between relative

11
wages and relative quantities more negative, thus making substitution between immigrants andnatives appear more imperfect than it really is.

4. Are “High School Equivalents” Equivalent?
The aggregation of workers into a manageable number of education groups is a crucial
step in any empirical analysis of the impact of immigration. In the United States, immigration
has increased the size of specific groups, such as high school dropouts and workers with postcollege degrees. Hence the literature has focused on estimating the impact of immigration onthese narrowly defined groups. In contrast, the wage structure literature (Katz and Murphy,1992) finds it convenient to discuss long-term trends in the returns to skills by examining thewage gap between two broadly defined education categories, high school equivalents (defined as
an aggregate of high school dropouts and high school graduates), and college equivalents(defined as an aggregate of those with education beyond high school).
Card (2009), Ottaviano and Peri (2011) and Manacorda, Manning, and Wadsworth(2011) all suggest that the high school equivalence-college equivalence breakdown should be
adopted in the immigration literature. Of course, whether such an adoption is warranted is anempirical question, depending on the value of the elasticity of substitution between high school
dropouts and high school graduates.5 The Armington aggregator that defines high school
equivalents is [!! !!!! + (1 − !! )!!!! ]! ! !,!where L1t and L2t give the labor supply of high school
dropouts and high school graduates at time t, respectively; the elasticity of substitution between
the two groups is σE = 1/(1 - δ); and !! is time-varying technology parameter that captures the

5 It also depends on the value of the elasticity of substitution among workers who have more than a highschool diploma. This elasticity, however, plays a less crucial role in calculations of the wage impact of immigrationin the United States.

12
relative productivity of the two education groups.6 Assuming that wages (wjt) equal the value ofmarginal product, the elasticity of substitution is identified by the regression:⎛w ⎞1 ⎛ L2t ⎞ln ⎜ 2t ⎟ = ρt −ln,
σ E ⎜⎝ L1t ⎟⎠⎝ w1t ⎠

(3)

where ρt = ln [ϕt/(1 - ϕt)]. Despite the superficial similarity of equations (1) and (3), they differ
radically in terms of the data that one can use to estimate them. With 32 skill groups, there are 32
observations per year to estimate !! in equation (1). As the dependent variable in equation (1) isthe difference in log wages within skill groups, demand and productivity shifters are removed
from the regression.7 In contrast, there is only one observation per year to estimate σE in equation(3) in national-level data. The dependent variable is the difference in log wages between skill
groups, which implies that demand and productivity shifters remain in the regression. With only
one observation per year one cannot control for these terms nonparametrically; additional
assumptions are required.
Most studies in the wage structure literature use the annual CPS to estimate σE.8 Katz andMurphy (1992) introduce the assumption that the period effects can be approximated by a linear
trend. More recent studies argue that there was a slowdown in the growth in demand for more
6 In theory, the quantities L

1t and L2t represent the number of “efficiency units” provided by all workers ineach of these education groups. For example, if high school graduates in different experience groups are not perfect
substitutes, the aggregation of the various groups into L2t would make use of the estimated elasticity of substitution
across experience groups (by using the appropriate Armington aggregator). As noted by OP (p. 22), the results
barely change if we use instead the total number of hours worked by persons in the cell. We opt for the simpler
specification to allow for easy replication of our results.

7 As we have argued, controlling for period effects may still be warranted if the composition of immigrants

and natives within skill groups changes over time.
8 These studies, however, estimate the elasticity of substitution between high school equivalents andcollege equivalents, rather than the elasticity between high school dropouts and high school graduates.

13
skilled workers after 1990 (Autor, Katz, and Krueger, 1998; Card and DiNardo, 2002). As aresult, Goldin and Katz (2008) and Autor, Katz, and Kearney (2008) expand the original linear
trend specification by adding a spline beginning in 1992 (defined as a trend variable taking on
the value of 0 in 1992, 1 in 1993, and so on).9
To analyze the sensitivity of the estimates of σE, we obtained the Goldin-Katz time series
on relative wages and relative quantities for high school dropouts and high school graduates.10
The coefficients reported in row 1 of the first column of Table 2 estimate the elasticity using theGoldin-Katz specification. The estimated coefficient is -0.135 (0.023), rejecting the hypothesisthat the two groups are perfect substitutes. The implied elasticity of substitution is 7.4. Column 3of the table re-estimates the model using the national-level Census-ACS data introduced in theprevious section.11 Although there are only six observations in the regression, the estimatedcoefficient is negative and significant. The implied estimate of σE is 3.8.
The remaining specifications in Table 2 are based on alternatives to the linear-trend-pluspost-1992-spline approximation to the relative change in demand for more skilled workers. The
estimates of σE are sensitive to how the regression controls for the unobserved variation in
relative demand. We first adopt the original Katz-Murphy linear trend assumption, excluding thepost-1992 spline used in the later Goldin-Katz study. The estimated elasticity is now equal to43.5 in the CPS data, in line with the conclusion that high school dropouts and high school

9 Although the Goldin-Katz discussion specifically refers to the wage gap between high school dropoutsand high school graduates, the Autor-Katz-Kearney analysis, which suggests the use of the same spline, refers tohigh school equivalents and college equivalents.
10 These are the data that underlie the analysis reported in Goldin and Katz (2008, Table 8.4, page 306).
Autor, Katz, and Kearney (2008, pp. 322-323) provide a detailed description of the construction of the data. Goldin
and Katz also use a few historical data points prior to 1963; we restrict our analysis to the post-1963 period, wheremodern CPS data are available. We are grateful to Larry Katz for providing us with the data file.
11 We use the mean log wage of natives as the measure of the productivity in the cell and use the correct
sampling weight in the regression.

14
graduates are highly substitutable. Ottaviano-Peri (2011, Table 5, column 2) also make use of the
CPS data and impose this linear trend assumption. Their reported estimate of the regression
coefficient is similar to that reported in row 2 of Table 2.
The next two rows of the table show the sensitivity of the elasticity estimates to theadoption of alternative trend specifications. The use of a quadratic trend leads to a rejection of
the CES framework in the Goldin-Katz data. The implied elasticity of substitution is statisticallysignificant and sizable, but it has the wrong sign. Similarly, the use of a cubic trend leads tofurther instability. Row (5) shows the result from the best-fitting linear-trend-plus-spline
specification. The best-fitting spline starts in 1979, which is not surprising in light of the wage
trends in the underlying Goldin-Katz data.12 However, the regression coefficient is positive andsignificant, at odds with the CES framework.
The sensitivity of estimates of σE to the assumed shape of the trend is not representativeof what is usually found in the wage structure literature. Most studies estimate the elasticity of
substitution between high school graduates and college graduates. To illustrate the robustness of
those results, we use the Acemoglu and Autor (2010) wage and employment series and conduct
the same set of sensitivity tests. Column 2 of Table 2 shows that the estimated elasticity between
college equivalents and high school equivalents is fairly robust to functional form assumptions.
In fact, the best-fitting spline begins in 1993, suggesting that it is unwise to transfer insights
obtained from measuring the substitutability between two particular education groups to theestimation of the substitutability between two other groups. More importantly, the instability
demonstrated in column 1 of the table is not inherent in the CES approach or in the use of timeseries data—rather, it is limited to estimates of the elasticity of substitution between high school
12 There was little change in the wage gap between the two groups until about 1980, at which time it began
to rise sharply (Goldin and Katz, 2008, Table 8.3).

15
dropouts and high school graduates, a parameter of particular interest in the U.S. immigration
context.
Card (2009) introduces an approach that would seem to avoid the pitfalls inherent inmaking untestable assumptions about the underlying trends in relative demand. He exploits
variation in relative wages and quantities across local labor markets (rather than national wage
trends) to estimate σE. He finds strong evidence of substitutability between high school graduatesand high school dropouts. Column 4 of the table uses the 1980-2006 Census-ACS data to
confirm Card’s results by defining a cell in terms of metropolitan area r, education j, and time t.
The benefit of this approach is that it would seem to eliminate the need to make arbitrary
assumptions about the underlying trends in relative demand. Since there are now manyobservations in each period (for different localities), the regression can include period fixed
effects. Row 6 shows that the regression coefficient estimated using MSA-based cells is -0.024(0.016). The coefficient is not statistically significant, suggesting that high school dropouts andhigh school graduates are perfect substitutes.
However, there are likely to be geographic differences in the evolution of relative
demand for high school dropouts and high school graduates and MSA and period fixed effects do
not absorb such differences.13 Hence, the need arises to make ancillary assumptions about the
MSA-specific trends in relative demand. Rows 7 and 8 of Table 2 illustrate what happens to theestimates when the MSA fixed effects are interacted either with a linear trend or with the GoldinKatz specification. The adjusted R-squared rises sharply when these terms are added to the
13 An analogous issue may arise in the estimation of the elasticity of substitution between equally skilled

immigrants and natives. There may be trends that are specific to a particular education-experience cell, and thatcannot be captured by the set of fixed effects included in the regressions reported in Table 1. The inclusion ofinteractions between the education-experience fixed effects and a linear trend in column 2 for the sample of working
men leads to a coefficient of 0.007 (0.021). Further, adding interactions with the post-1992 spline leads to acoefficient of 0.010 (0.024). Thus, accounting for group-specific trends does not change the conclusion that equallyskilled immigrants and natives are perfect substitutes.

16model. The estimated coefficients, as in the national-level data, are unstable, and in the case of
the Goldin-Katz specification, reject the CES framework.
The last column of Table 2 reports results when we use states as the geographic definitionof the labor market. The coefficient in row 6, based on a regression that includes only state
effects and year effects, yields an estimated elasticity of 14.5, rejecting the conjecture that highschool dropouts and high school graduates are perfect substitutes. It is noteworthy that theestimated elasticity becomes larger the smaller the geographic area that defines the labor market:
it is 7.4 in the national CPS data (using the Goldin-Katz specification), 14.5 at the state level, and41.7 at the MSA level. This finding mirrors the well-known result that wages and immigration
are more closely linked the larger the size of the geographic labor market.
To conclude, the existing evidence on the elasticity of substitution between high school
dropouts and high school graduates is sensitive to the assumptions one makes about the time pathof unobserved shocks to relative demand and relative productivity for high school dropouts andhigh school graduates. The use of geographic variation introduces the need to control for theunobserved dispersion in the evolution of relative demand across localities, and reintroduces
conceptual issues (that remain unresolved in the literature) about how local labor markets adapt
to an immigration-induced supply shift. Table 2 teaches a simple lesson: Different assumptions
yield different conclusions about whether high school equivalents are, in fact, equivalent.
Whereas the CES framework is useful for analyzing the substitutability of labor within skill
groups, as shown in Table 1, it is perhaps less useful for analyzing the substitutability of labor
between these two particular skill groups, as seen in Table 2.
This may be an unsatisfying interpretation of the evidence. Nevertheless, we believe that
despite the importance of determining the extent of substitution between high school dropouts

17and high school graduates, it may be unwise to reach any conclusion about the magnitude of theelasticity from CES-style relative wage regressions. The nature of the underlying trends indemand for the two groups cannot be established; the assumption of a linear trend (or a post1992 spline) is arbitrary; and the introduction of geographic variation leads to a menu of pickand-choose results depending on the level of geographic aggregation.
In an important sense, the results in Table 2 illustrate the limits of what the nested CES
framework can teach us about the labor market impact of immigration. Aggregating or
disaggregating education groups can make the estimated impact as small or as large as one
would like. Yet, there is no convincing empirical evidence that indicates how best to pool. Put
bluntly, the instability of the estimates of the elasticity that allow us to define a skill group of“high school equivalents” in the United States should serve as a word of caution in this context
and in related studies.

18
References!
Acemoglu,!Daron,!and!David!Autor!(2010).!“Skills,!Tasks!and!Technologies:!
Implications!for!Employment!and!Earnings.”!In!Handbook,of,Labor,Economics,!Volume!4,!
edited!by!Orley!Ashenfelter!and!David!E.!Card.!Elsevier.!
!
Autor,!David!H.,!Lawrence!F.!Katz,!and!Melissa!S.!Kearney!(2008).!“Trends!in!U.S.!
Wage!Inequality:!Revising!the!Revisionists.”!Review,of,Economics,and,Statistics,!90,!300–
323.!
!
!
Aydemir,!Abdurrahman!and!George!J.!Borjas!(2007).!“A!Comparative!Analysis!of!the!
Labor!Market!Impact!of!International!Migration:!Canada,!Mexico,!and!the!United!States.”!
Journal,of,the,European,Economic,Association,,5,!663b708.!
!
Borjas,!George!J.!(2003).!“The!Labor!Demand!Curve!Is!Downward!Sloping:!
Reexamining!the!Impact!of!Immigration!on!the!Labor!Market,”!Quarterly,Journal,of,
Economics,!118,!1335b1374.!
!
Borjas,!George!J.,!Jeffrey!Grogger,!and!Gordon!H.!Hanson!(2008).!“Imperfect!
Substitution!between!Immigrants!and!Natives:!A!Reappraisal,”!NBER!Working!Paper!No.!
13887.!
!
!
Borjas,!George!J.,!Jeffrey!Grogger,!and!Gordon!H.!Hanson!(2010).!“Immigration!and!the!
Economic!Status!of!AfricanbAmerican!Men,”!Economica,!77,!255b282.!
!
Card,!David!(2001).!“Immigrant!Inflows,!Native!Outflows,!and!the!Local!Labor!
Market!Impacts!of!Higher!Immigration,”!Journal,of,Labor,Economics,,19,!22b64.!
!
Card,!David!(2009).!"Immigration!and!Inequality,"!American,Economic,Review,!99,!1b
21.!
!
Card,!David,!and!Thomas!Lemieux!(2001).!“Can!Falling!Supply!Explain!the!Rising!
Return!to!College!for!Young!Men?”!Quarterly,Journal,of,Economics,,116,!705b746.!
!
Jaeger,!David!(1996,!revised!2007).!“Skill!Differences!and!the!Effect!of!Immigrants!
on!the!Wages!of!Natives,”!U.S.!Bureau!of!Labor!Statistics!Working!Paper.!
!
!
Katz,!Lawrence!F.,!and!Kevin!M.!Murphy!(1992).!"Changes!in!Relative!Wages,!1963b
1987:!Supply!and!Demand!Factors,"!Quarterly,Journal,of,Economics,!107,!35b78.!
!
!
Lemieux,!Thomas!(2006).!"Increasing!Residual!Wage!Inequality:!Composition!
Effects,!Noisy!Data,!or!Rising!Demand!for!Skill?"!American,Economic,Review,!96,!1b!64.!
!
Manacorda,!Marco,!Alan!Manning,!and!Jonathan!Wadsworth!(2011).“The!Impact!of!
Immigration!on!the!Structure!of!Wages:!Theory!and!Evidence!from!Britain,”!Journal,of,the,European,Economic,Association,!forthcoming.!

19!
!
Ottaviano,!Gianmarco,!and!Giovanni!Peri!(2011).!“Rethinking!the!Effects!of!
Immigration!on!Wages,”!Journal,of,the,European,Economic,Association,!forthcoming.!
!
!

Table 1. Estimates of the elasticity of substitution between equally skilled immigrants and natives (σ N)
1. Log mean wages (OP)Male
Male & Female
2. Log mean wages, correct weighting
Male
Male & Female
3. Mean log wage, correct weighting
Male
Male & Female
Fixed effects:
Year
Education × experience
Education × year
Experience × year

(1)
-0.046(0.008)-0.029(0.008)All workers(2)(3)-0.008-0.021(0.012)(0.014)-0.009-0.015(0.013)(0.015)(5)-0.056(0.006)-0.043(0.006)Full-time workers(6)(7)-0.023-0.037(0.007) (0.011)-0.027-0.032(0.008) (0.012)

(4)
0.009
(0.025)-0.030(0.031)(8)
0.044(0.026)0.022(0.022)-0.030(0.009)-0.021(0.009)-0.021(0.013)-0.023(0.012)-0.013(0.011)-0.011(0.012)0.006(0.029)-0.023(0.030)-0.042(0.004)-0.037(0.005)-0.036(0.007)-0.042(0.007)-0.026(0.009)-0.027(0.009)0.015(0.030)0.002(0.025)-0.008(0.017)[0.001]-0.002(0.015)[-0.005]

0.008(0.021)[0.103]0.004(0.018)[0.038]0.008(0.013)[0.768]0.001(0.012)[0.787]0.009(0.034)[0.906]-0.034(0.036)[0.920]-0.033(0.005)[0.175]-0.029(0.005)[0.163]-0.020(0.007)[0.318]-0.027(0.007)[0.261]-0.009(0.009)[0.690]-0.015(0.009)[0.758]0.030(0.031)[0.865]0.006(0.024)[0.938]

No
No
No
No

Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No

Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Notes: Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses, and are clustered by education-experience cells; adjusted R-squared reported in brackets. The OP
weights in row 1 are total employment in the cell; the weights in rows 2 and 3 are given by the inverse of the sampling variance of the dependent variable.

Table 2. Elasticity of substitution between education groups
CPS
Groups:Census-ACS

High school graduates and:High school dropouts and highschool graduates
3. National 4. MSA 5. State
level
level
level
-0.260----(0.028)[0.995]

1. High school
dropouts-0.135(0.027)[0.968]

2. College
graduates-0.619(0.067)[0.940]2. Linear trend only

-0.023(0.012)[0.945]-0.326(0.043)[0.906]-0.103(0.025)[0.930]------3. Quadratic trend

0.101(0.045)[0.954]-0.535(0.113)[0.912]-0.008(0.054)[0.970]------4. Cubic trend-0.047(0.012)[0.978]-0.529(0.096)[0.942]-0.063(0.053)[0.980]------5. Linear trend, best-fitting spline

0.119(0.015)[0.986]-0.604(0.063)[0.942]

---

---

---

6. Period fixed effects

---

---

---

-0.024(0.016)[0.760]-0.069(0.025)[0.554]

7. State/MSA effects × linear trend

---

---

---

-0.037(0.026)[0.868]-0.119(0.011)[0.830]8. State/MSA effects × linear
trend and post-1992 spline

---

---

---

0.141

-0.152(0.074)[0.942](0.028)[0.844]

Yes
1071

Yes
306

Specification
1. Linear trend, post-1992 spline

Includes state or MSA fixed effects
Number of observations

--43

--46

--6

Notes: Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses, and are clustered at the MSA or state level in columns 4
and 5; adjusted R-squared reported in brackets. Column 1 uses the Goldin-Katz (2008) CPS data from 1963 to 2005;
column 2 uses the Acemoglu-Autor (2010) CPS data from 1963 to 2008; and columns 3-5 use the sample of fulltime male and female workers in the Census-ACS (from 1960-2006 in columns 2 and 4, and 1980-2006 in column
3). The best-fitting spline in the Goldin-Katz data begins in 1979, while the best-fitting spline in the AcemogluAutor data begins in 1993. The regressions reported in columns 1 and 2 are unweighted; all other regressions areweighted by the inverse of the variance of the dependent variable.