Asian Americans faced a disproportionately larger surge in unemployment rates than other racial and ethnic groups during the Covid-19 pandemic. While existing literature typically examines labor demand channels to explain this, we instead explore a labor supply channel. Our hypothesis is that Asian Americans are more cautious about Covid-19 infections and thus more selective about job opportunities, contributing to their higher unemployment rate than other groups. Analysis of cellphone data during the pandemic indicates that non-work mobility significantly decreased in areas with larger Asian populations, supporting our hypothesis.
The far-reaching economic impact of COVID-19 has been felt across the nation, but has been particularly harmful to New York City’s Asian American workers and their families. Nationally, Asian American unemployment rates increased from 2.5% in February 2020, to 14.5% in April 2020, to 15% in May 2020 , the greatest rate of increase among all racial groups across the country. The Asian American Federation’s report will focus on what is happening locally in New York City. There is limited data on the current Asian American employment at the local level. The best survey on employment by Asian ethnicity for local areas is the American Community Survey. However, it only releases annual data in the fall and winter of each year; therefore, this report will use available local data to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on employment among Asian New Yorkers. First, we will look at the growth in state unemployment claims by Asian Americans. Next, we will use data from the American Community Survey to estimate how reliant each Asian community in New York City is on specific industries for jobs. Finally, we will look at the most recent employment reports to measure year-to-year changes in job loss for April and May to see the impact of COVID-19 on industries that Asian New Yorkers have traditionally relied on for employment.
In the late l9th and early 20th century, labor issues fanned the flames of anti-Asian sentiment, as they continue to do to this day. These essays explore the topics of immigration and work, ethnic economics and enclaves, the role of middlemen minorities, Southeast Asian refugee employment, and issues of class, hierarchy, immigrant recruitment, intra-community exploitation, and poverty in Asian American communities.
Officially over in 2009, the Great Recession is now generally acknowledged to be the most devastating global economic crisis since the Great Depression. As a result of the crisis, the United States lost more than 7.5 million jobs, and the unemployment rate doubled—peaking at more than 10 percent. The collapse of the housing market and subsequent equity market fluctuations delivered a one-two punch that destroyed trillions of dollars in personal wealth and made many Americans far less financially secure. Still reeling from these early shocks, the U.S. economy will undoubtedly take years to recover. Less clear, however, are the social effects of such economic hardship on a U.S. population accustomed to long periods of prosperity. How are Americans responding to these hard times? The Great Recession is the first authoritative assessment of how the aftershocks of the recession are affecting individuals and families, jobs, earnings and poverty, political and social attitudes, lifestyle and consumption practices, and charitable giving. Focused on individual-level effects rather than institutional causes, The Great Recession turns to leading experts to examine whether the economic aftermath caused by the recession is transforming how Americans live their lives, what they believe in, and the institutions they rely on. Contributors Michael Hout, Asaf Levanon, and Erin Cumberworth show how job loss during the recession—the worst since the 1980s—hit less-educated workers, men, immigrants, and factory and construction workers the hardest. Millions of lost industrial jobs are likely never to be recovered and where new jobs are appearing, they tend to be either high-skill positions or low-wage employment—offering few opportunities for the middle-class. Edward Wolff, Lindsay Owens, and Esra Burak examine the effects of the recession on housing and wealth for the very poor and the very rich. They find that while the richest Americans experienced the greatest absolute wealth loss, their resources enabled them to weather the crisis better than the young families, African Americans, and the middle class, who experienced the most disproportionate loss—including mortgage delinquencies, home foreclosures, and personal bankruptcies. Lane Kenworthy and Lindsay Owens ask whether this recession is producing enduring shifts in public opinion akin to those that followed the Great Depression. Surprisingly, they find no evidence of recession-induced attitude changes toward corporations, the government, perceptions of social justice, or policies aimed at aiding the poor. Similarly, Philip Morgan, Erin Cumberworth, and Christopher Wimer find no major recession effects on marriage, divorce, or cohabitation rates. They do find a decline in fertility rates, as well as increasing numbers of adult children returning home to the family nest—evidence that suggests deep pessimism about recovery. This protracted slump—marked by steep unemployment, profound destruction of wealth, and sluggish consumer activity—will likely continue for years to come, and more pronounced effects may surface down the road. The contributors note that, to date, this crisis has not yet generated broad shifts in lifestyle and attitudes. But by clarifying how the recession’s early impacts have—and have not—influenced our current economic and social landscape, The Great Recession establishes an important benchmark against which to measure future change.
On March 12th 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) declared the spreading of the new virus, 2019-nCoV, a pandemic. In Asia, the virus, more commonly referred to as COVID-19, has been spreading since the end of December. To contain the public health threat, almost all countries enforced a variety of measures, including lockdowns, to minimize face-to-face human interactions between the infected and the susceptible.While these vigilant measures save lives, they also generate a substantial negative economic shock that immediately halts demand and significantly disrupts supply, global production value chain and trade. The consequences are dire — considerable decline in output, massive surge in unemployment, countless bankruptcy cases, and unrelentless worries over financial stability. The result, a worldwide economic setback, is more severe than that experienced during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009.Asia's experiences with COVID-19 precede that in the West. This fortuitous timing allows Asia to share its learnings drawn from experiences to benefit the world.The Asian Bureau of Finance and Economic Research's (ABFER) community has gathered a collection of insights to inform the public. Besides providing access to research on the pandemic conducted in Asia, these commentaries offer comprehensive information on the effects of the pandemic, the effectiveness of measures employed to contain it and the subsequent economic impacts from such implementation. With granular analyses of government policies and their associated economic rescue packages, these commentaries elucidate the hard trade-offs between public health protection and economic security. Finally, the commentaries address the broader impact of the pandemic on international trade, global value chains and society.
We study the distributional consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic’s impacts on employment. Using CPS data on stocks and flows, we show that the pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. Although employment losses have been widespread, they have been substantially larger in lower-paying occupations and industries. Individuals from disadvantaged groups, such as Hispanics, younger workers, those with lower levels of education, and women, have suffered both larger increases in job losses and larger decreases in hiring rates. Occupational and industry affiliation can explain only part of the increased job losses among these groups.
Asian Americans with disabilities are an invisible minority within an invisible minority. Approximately 12% of the Asian American population of 14.6 million has a disability. Unfortunately, this population has attracted very little attention in the research literature on disability policy and Asian American studies. In particular, the labor market experiences of Asian Americans with disabilities have received virtually no mention in the academic literature of immigrant labor markets and ethnic enclave economies. This is largely due to cultural, religious and language stigma associated with Asian Americans with disabilities, that people with disabilities should be kept out of the public view. This dissertation aims to begin the identification and explanation of the challenges faced by Asian Americans with physical and developmental disabilities in their attempts to access the U.S. labor market. The dissertation starts with conceptual models delineating the challenges and barriers Asian Americans with disabilities face in trying to find employment. The methodological approach utilized is a parallel mixed-methods design. Focus groups of English and non-English speaking Asian Americans with disabilities were conducted to gain insight into their labor market experiences. Data gathered from the focus groups was used to inform and formulate questions for the individual interview stage. The second part is analysis of PUMS 2005 census survey data measuring the effects on employment and income, given disability, English-speaking ability, race, gender and location. The third part of the research consisted of open-ended qualitative interviews with 18 Asian Americans with disabilities to collect text data to further explain the causal relationships revealed by the focus groups and PUMS analysis. The results of this research revealed that disability has a significant effect on labor market opportunities for Asian American with disabilities. Further, gender and English-speaking ability also have significant measurable effects. Arguably, disability, gender and English-speaking ability in combination produced the clearest results of labor market disparities. The study concludes with recommendations for future research and implications for policy makers and practitioners. Potential audiences for this dissertation are individuals with disabilities and their families, community-based organizations, federal employment programs, work search programs, mainstream disability service organizations, legislators and planners.
Using data of the largest online job board in China, Zhaopin.com, we examine the impacts of the lockdown policy on the Chinese labor market demand during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The analyses reveal that the lockdown policy, which was implemented in Wuhan on January 23, 2020, reduced the labor market demand drastically. Specifically, the "Number of Companies" that posted weekly job vacancies, "Number of Positions," and "Number of Employees" to be recruited reduced rapidly by 18.5%, 21.9%, and 30.0%, respectively. Furthermore, this impact of the lockdown policy began to reduce, thus allowing the labor demand to rebound four weeks after the outbreak. The heterogeneity analyses reveal that the industries with high physical proximity and those manufacturing non-essential products/services, as well as small-size firms, were greatly impacted by the policy. No statistical difference was observed between the impacts on the cities that implemented specific control measures and those that did not. This study quantifies the dynamic impacts of China's stringent control measures on the country's labor demand during the pandemic. These findings indicate that the effective management of public health crises in conjunction with economic policies is critical to revitalizing labor markets.
We document the short-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Brazilian labor market focusing on employment, wages and hours worked using the nationally representative household surveys PNAD-Continua and PNAD COVID. Sectors most susceptible to the shock because they are more contact-intensive and less teleworkable, such as construction, domestic services and hospitality, suffered large job losses and reductions in hours. Given low income workers experienced the largest decline in earnings, extreme poverty and the Gini coefficient based on labor income increased by around 9.2 and 5 percentage points, respectively, due to the immediate shock. The government’s broad based, temporary Emergency Aid transfer program more than offset the labor income losses for the bottom four deciles, however, such that poverty relative to the pre-COVID baseline fell. At a cost of around 4 percent of GDP in 2020 such support is not fiscally sustainable beyond the short-term and ended in late 2020. The challenge will be to avoid a sharp increase in poverty and inequality if the labor market does not pick up sufficiently fast in 2021.
In the United States, some populations suffer from far greater disparities in health than others. Those disparities are caused not only by fundamental differences in health status across segments of the population, but also because of inequities in factors that impact health status, so-called determinants of health. Only part of an individual's health status depends on his or her behavior and choice; community-wide problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education, inadequate housing, poor public transportation, interpersonal violence, and decaying neighborhoods also contribute to health inequities, as well as the historic and ongoing interplay of structures, policies, and norms that shape lives. When these factors are not optimal in a community, it does not mean they are intractable: such inequities can be mitigated by social policies that can shape health in powerful ways. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity seeks to delineate the causes of and the solutions to health inequities in the United States. This report focuses on what communities can do to promote health equity, what actions are needed by the many and varied stakeholders that are part of communities or support them, as well as the root causes and structural barriers that need to be overcome.
