Term
|
Definition
E-Verify is an internet-based, free program run by the US government that compares information from an employee's I-9 form to data from US records
- If the information matches, that employee is considered eligible to work in the US
- If there is a mismatch, E-Verify alerts the employer and the employee is allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem, but must contact the appropriate agency to resolve the mismatch. |
|
|
Term
| What is the objective/intended consequence of E-Verify? |
|
Definition
| Reduce employment of unauthorized workers |
|
|
Term
| What is the scope of E-Verify? How many states have enacted laws mandating the use of E-Verify? |
|
Definition
| 18 states have enacted laws mandating the use of E-Verify by firms with ties to state public programs or by all firms as of 2011. |
|
|
Term
| What are some of the states that have adopted each type of program? |
|
Definition
AZ (enacted Jul-07, implemented Jan-08)
Scope: all
CO (enacted Jun-06, implemented Aug-08)
Scope: public
UT (enacted mar-08, implemented Jul-09)
Scope: public first, all after March 2010 |
|
|
Term
| What are two of the potential unintended consequences of E-Verify noted in the article? |
|
Definition
1. Fraud: The system is vulnerable to identity fraud, employer misuse and, as such, does not prevent unauthorized employment.
2. Mobility across sectors/states: Most states that have implemented E-veriy mandates have only enforced them on public agencies and contracts. Additionally, some states contemplate exemptions, such as fairly short-term contracts or employment in small firms.
As a result, workers may still seek employment in:
- The private sector
- Switch to employment exempted from using E-verify
- Migrate to a nearby state without an E-verify mandate, or
- Get 'off-the-books' jobs |
|
|
Term
| What are the two research questions investigated in "The Labor Market Impact of Mandated Employment Verification Systems"? |
|
Definition
1. Have E-verify mandates impacted the employment and wages of likely unauthorized men and women?
2. Has the employment distribution of these workers across industries significantly changed with the enactment and implementation of E-verify mandates?
We answer these two questions while allowing for the impacts to differ according to:
- The scope (state-wide vs. public sector) and
- The timing (enactment vs. implementation date) of the mandate |
|
|
Term
| What are the hypothesis and potential outcomes tested in in "The Labor Market Impact of Mandated Employment Verification Systems"? |
|
Definition
Hypothesis: The current E-verify system may not only reduce unauthorized employment, but also raise employment costs, increase or decrease wages, and/or increase informal/off-the-books employment.
Potential Outcomes:
Outcome 1: Both employment and wages drop in states w/ e-verify as labor demand declines.
Outcome 2: Employment levels might decrease, but wages may rise, if the supply-side response dominates and workers migrate to other sectors, states or get 'off the books' employment.
Outcome 3: Finally, overall employment and wages may not change due to high non-compliance and identity fraud rates. |
|
|
Term
| What data is used to test the research questions in in "The Labor Market Impact of Mandated Employment Verification Systems"? |
|
Definition
National Conference of State Legislatures: State-level data on year of enactment and implementation and type of state-mandate.
Current Population Survey: Monthly data from January 2004 to December 2010 on employment outcomes and outgoing-rotation group monthly data (subset) for wage data.
- Labor Force Status
- Hourly wages
- Industry
- Education
- Race/ethnicity
- Other demographics
Baseline Sample: Hispanic non-citizen, between 16 and 45 years of age with a HS education or less (group most likely to be unauthorized) |
|
|
Term
How has E-Verify impacted the employment and wages of unauthorized men and women? |
|
Definition
EMPLOYMENT:
Only state-wide mandates appear to impact the wages of likely unauthorized workers – raising them by 9% immediately after enactment but then lowering them after implementation by 5.8% for a total of a 3.5% increase.
Gender differences:
•Among women: the enactment of E-Verify mandates pushes up wages.
•Among men: wages remain unchanged after the enactment date to later on decline following the implementation of state-wide E-Verify mandates.
WAGES:
The employment probability of likely unauthorized men and women in states with newly enacted state-wide mandates declines by 3 and 7 pp., respectively.
Differential impact by scope: Owing to the smaller scope of the public sector mandates, their enactment only reduces male employment by 2 pp.
Differential impact by timing: Employment diminishes following the enactment date of E-Verify mandates – hinting on an immediate LS response.
|
|
|
Term
What are some of the explanations behind the potentially different effect of E-Verify on unauthorized men and women? |
|
Definition
Differential impacts by gender:
Women: The enactment of a state-wide mandate lowers the employment and raises wages - suggesting large LS reductions.
Men: Employment decreases and wages remain unchanged after the enactment date to decline later on following the implementation of state-wide E-verify mandates - hence, aside form any LS reductions, LD must drop significantly. |
|
|
Term
| What might be responsible for the gender differences in the impacts of e-verify on men vs. women? |
|
Definition
Perhaps, women, if in charge of dependent children, are more risk-averse than men.
Alternatively, women might work in industries that differ in the degree to which employers are exempt from e-verify mandates |
|
|
Term
How has E-Verify impacted the employment distribution of likely unauthorized workers across industries according to the scope of the mandate? |
|
Definition
Increased shares of likely unauthorized workers in sectors with possible exemptions(contract duration, firm size):
•Agriculture employment: where the share of likely unauthorized workers increases by 6 pp.
•Food service employment: where the share of likely unauthorized female workers increases by 8 pp.
In contrast, they decrease in:
Construction: where the share of likely unauthorized male workers drops by 10 pp. with the enactment and implementation of state-wide E-Verify mandates.
Private HH: where the share of likely unauthorized female workers drops by 4 pp., possibly due to large LS reductions following the enactment of state-wide mandates |
|
|
Term
What are the 2 overall conclusions about the impact of e-verify mandates in "The Labor Market Impact of Mandated Employment Verification Systems? |
|
Definition
1. We find that E-verify mandates, particularly state-wide mandates, significantly curtail the employment probability of likely unauthorized male and female workers.
2. However, the mandates have mixed effects on wages and appear to redistribute likely unauthorized labor towards industries often benefitting from specific exclusions, such as agriculture or food services.
Potentially large economic costs associated with the reshuffling of workers across industries raise concerns about the design and implementation of e-verify mandates on a state-by-state basis. |
|
|
