Skip to main content
Menu

Main navigation

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
    LOADING...
  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit
    LOADING...
  • Publications
    • Studies
    • Commentary
    • Books
    • Reviews and Journals
    • Public Filings
    LOADING...
  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving

Issues

  • Constitution and Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal Justice
    • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Economics
    • Banking and Finance
    • Monetary Policy
    • Regulation
    • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Politics and Society
    • Education
    • Government and Politics
    • Health Care
    • Poverty and Social Welfare
    • Technology and Privacy
  • International
    • Defense and Foreign Policy
    • Global Freedom
    • Immigration
    • Trade Policy
Live Now

Cato at Liberty


  • Blog Home
  • RSS

Email Signup

Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!

Topics
  • Banking and Finance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Justice
  • Defense and Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Global Freedom
  • Government and Politics
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Monetary Policy
  • Poverty and Social Welfare
  • Regulation
  • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Technology and Privacy
  • Trade Policy
Archives
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • Show More
February 19, 2021 10:48AM

Wages Did Not Rise in Arizona After SB1070

By Alex Nowrasteh

SHARE

National conservatives have latched onto the idea that cutting immigration will increase wages despite all of the evidence to the contrary. One of the pieces of evidence they cite most is a 2016 article in the Wall Street Journal that states that wages for construction and farm occupations in Arizona went up by 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively, in the 4 years after Arizona passed its immigration enforcement law SB1070 in 2010. Both Oren Cass and Christopher Caldwell use this data point.

The only problem is those claims about wages are not true. Wages did not rise in Arizona after the passage of SB1070. This blog post uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) and different methods to investigate whether wages for construction and farm workers rose in Arizona after the passage of SB1070. In every instance, wages did not rise in Arizona after that state passed immigration enforcement laws in 2007 and 2010. Just as economic theory would predict, there was no absolute rise in wages after Arizona cracked down on illegal immigration.

Farm Wages

The mean nominal wage for all farm workers (occupational code 45-0000) in the OES rose only 4.7 percent in nominal terms, from $9.52 an hour in 2010 to $9.97 an hour in 2014. In real terms, using the personal consumption expenditures index (PCE) with a base year of 2012, wages for all farming jobs in Arizona fell over that time from $9.85 to $9.67 an hour – an almost 2 percent decline in real hourly wages. That is a lot less than the 15 percent rise that was supposed to have occurred.

Perhaps farm worker wages started rising in 2007, the year that Arizona passed a law mandating E-Verify for all new hires in the state. That 2007 law, called the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), is often confused with the 2010 law SB1070. LAWA likely did cause a large decline in the illegal immigrant population in Arizona – about 41 percent from 2007 to 2010 according to an estimate based on the Gunadi method of calculating the illegal immigrant population. Let’s be extra generous and see how wages changed from 2007 through 2014. During that time, hourly wages for Arizona farm workers rose by 7.8 percent in nominal terms and declined 3.4 percent in real terms.

Another possibility is that farm worker wages in Arizona rose relative to farm worker wages in other states. That’s not the same as saying that Arizona farm workers got a raise, but perhaps wages there didn’t decline as much as in other Southwestern states that didn’t pass anti-immigration laws. Thus, I used a difference-in-differences approach to compare wages in Arizona with wages in the other Southwestern states of California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah; before and after the passage of SB1070. There is no statistically significant difference in real hourly Arizona farm wages that occurs after the passage of SB1070 with a correlation coefficient of -0.005, standard errors of 0.964, and a p-value of 0.996. Figure 1 shows real hourly farm worker wages in Arizona versus the average of the other Southwest states. Changing the treatment year to 2007 to coincide with the passage of LAWA yields similarly insignificant results but a much more negative coefficient, as can clearly be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Farm Worker Wages in Arizona vs. Other Southwestern States

sb1070 fig 1

Farm worker wages did rise from the 2006 to 2007 period and in the 2016 to 2019 period. In the earlier period, the illegal immigrant population in Arizona rose by 26 percent. In the latter period, it rose by about 4 percent. Interestingly, farm worker wages stagnated and even declined during the exact period when Arizona’s 2007 and 2010 immigration laws were in effect. A complicating factor is that SB1070 was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2012, turning it into a zombie statute. How could SB1070, a law that was passed in 2010 and gutted in 2012, cause the real hourly wage for farm workers in Arizona to rise four years later when the illegal immigrant population was also increasing? I have not yet heard an explanation from national conservatives.

Construction Wages

The other claim is that construction wages rose by 10 percent after the passage of SB1070. The mean nominal hourly wage for all construction workers (47-0000) in the OES was essentially flat from 2010-2014. They rose by 6.7 percent from $18.78 per hour in 2010 to $20.04 per hour in 2014. In real terms, construction wages fell by 1 cent from $19.44 an hour in 2010 to $19.43 an hour in 2014. Like above, we must give the national conservatives the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they meant to start their analysis in 2007 when Arizona mandated E-Verify. Over that longer time, the nominal hourly construction wages rose 18.8 percent and 6.4 percent in real terms. That’s still a lot less than the 10 percent they claimed over a much shorter period.

An analysis using difference-in-differences, which is methodologically identical to that for farm workers, shows no statistically significant difference after 2010 with a correlation coefficient of 0.360, a standard error of 0.629, and a p-value of 0.567. Figure 2 shows real hourly construction worker wages in Arizona versus the average of the other Southwest states. Changing the treatment year to 2007 to coincide with the passage of LAWA yields similarly insignificant results. No matter how you look at it, construction wages in Arizona did not increase relative to other states when that state government passed SB1070 in 2010 or LAWA in 2007.

Figure 2

Construction Worker Wages in Arizona vs. Other Southwestern States

sb1070 fig 2

I ran similar analyses for real hourly wages for all occupations in Arizona compared to other states in the Southwest. There was no statistically significant difference. These difference-in-differences analyses are simple and readers can perform better analyses easily enough, but I’m at the point where there seems to be little utility in going further. There just isn't anything there. This blog post attempted to discover whether construction and farm wages rose in Arizona after SB1070 was passed, which is the claim made by Cass, Caldwell, and others. It’s time for national conservatives to do the hard work and provide evidence for their claims. No matter how you slice the evidence, Arizona’s immigration laws did not increase the wages of workers in Arizona.

Special thanks to Devin Thompson who helped with completing this blog post.

Related Tags
Immigration

Stay Connected to Cato

Sign up for the newsletter to receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, and publications.

View All Newsletters

1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
202-842-0200
Contact Us
Privacy

Footer 1

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
  • Podcasts

Footer 2

  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit

Footer 3

  • Publications
    • Books
    • Cato Journal
    • Regulation
    • Cato Policy Report
    • Cato Supreme Court Review
    • Cato’s Letter
    • Human Freedom Index
    • Economic Freedom of the World
    • Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Footer 4

  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
Also from Cato Institute:
Libertarianism.org
|
Humanprogress.org
|
Downsizinggovernment.org