“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
AI Summary.An analysis estimating immigrants' effects on output, capital, tax revenue, and descendants finds admitting one 30-year-old without a high school diploma costs the federal government $20,000 over 10 years and over $130,000 over 30 years, while a college-educated 30-year-old yields over $200,000 and $1.6m respectively.
Daniel Di MartinoManhattan Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
A 30-year-old immigrant without a high school degree yields net revenue losses of $20k to the federal government over 10 years and >$130k over 30 years, while his college-educated peer yields fiscal gains of $200k over 10 years and $1.6mm over 30 years.
How does an immigrant's education level change the fiscal impact?
Core argument: Admitting one college-educated 30-year-old immigrant yields a net federal gain of over $200,000 in the 10-year budget window and $1.6 million over 30 years, accounting for descendants, according to the analysis.
This updated analysis accounts for the economic impact of immigrants on Gross Domestic Product, the capital stock, and the resulting additional tax revenue. It also accounts for the fiscal and economic impact of the children and grandchildren of immigrants. [It does not account for inflation. All numbers from 2026 on are in nominal terms, mimicking CBO scoring]. Accounting for descendants, the total fiscal impact of admitting one immigrant who is 30 years old without a high school diploma is a loss of $20,000 to the federal government in the 10-year budget window and a loss of over $130,000 over the 30-year budget window. On the other hand, admitting one college-educated 30-year-old immigrant results in a net gain of over $200,000 in the 10-year window and a gain of $1.6 million in the 30-year budget window. Shifting visas toward high-skilled categories, wage-ranking H-1B visas, and recapturing unused employment-based green cards from previous years can reduce deficits while boosting GDP.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Admitting one college-educated 30-year-old immigrant yields a net federal gain of over $200,000 in the 10-year budget window and $1.6 million over 30 years, accounting for descendants, according to the analysis.
Admitting one 30-year-old immigrant without a high school diploma costs the federal government $20,000 over the 10-year window and over $130,000 over 30 years, including the fiscal impact of children and grandchildren.
The analysis finds that shifting visas toward high-skilled categories, wage-ranking H-1B visas, and recapturing unused employment-based green cards from prior years can reduce deficits while boosting GDP.
Related Articles:
Two New Estimates of the Fiscal Impact of Immigration— Estimates of immigrants' fiscal impact depend heavily on the assumptions used: the lifetime fiscal impact of a 22-year-old high school dropout shifts from negative $315,000 under one set of assumptions to a small negative number under another. The author argues the accounting approach common in this literature understates immigrants' contribution to fiscal sustainability.
America’s— Current Population Survey estimates indicate America's foreign-born population surpassed 50m for the first time and exceeded 15% of the national population, above the prior peak of 14.8% recorded in 1890. Mass immigration during that earlier wave was associated in contemporary opinion with widening income and wealth gaps and depressed wages for less-skilled native-born men, and sweeping national restrictions followed.
Immigration Mess: An Illustrated Guide— Current Population Survey estimates indicate America's foreign-born population surpassed 50m for the first time and exceeded 15% of the national population, above the prior peak of 14.8% recorded in 1890. Mass immigration during that earlier wave was associated in contemporary opinion with widening income and wealth gaps and depressed wages for less-skilled native-born men, and sweeping national restrictions followed.
Did The Political Establishment Pave The Way For Trump and Farage?— An analysis finds that voters and mainstream politicians have long been broadly aligned on economic issues such as tax and spending, but diverge widely on sociocultural issues like immigration and criminal justice, with publics favoring more order and cultural integration while politicians lean toward more inclusive, permissive approaches.
AI Summary.Because restrictive planning laws prevent housing supply from responding to demand in rich countries, researchers estimate that a 1% rise in a city's migrant population raises rents by 0.5–1%, with other studies estimating larger effects on house prices and median rents. Since migration has only a small positive effect on wages, housing becomes less affordable for natives.
Economist StaffThe Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
The ongoing wave of immigration to OECD countries has likely put upward pressure on housing costs. @TheEconomist reports on studies finding that a 1% increase in the migrant population of a region raises housing costs from 1-3%.
Does immigration make housing less affordable where building is restricted?
Core argument: A University of Waikato meta-analysis finds that a 1% increase in a city's migrant population raises rents by 0.5–1%, while Umut Unal of the Czech Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs estimates a 1% rise in migration to a German district raises house prices by 3%.
Rich-world housing markets are often rigid and bound by restrictive planning laws that prevent supply from responding to demand. The lump of labour may be a fallacy but, without more housebuilding, there is effectively one lump of land that must be divided between a larger population. Research supports this intuition. A University of Waikato [meta-analysis] finds that a 1% increase in the migrant population of a city leads to a 0.5-1% rise in rents. Umut Unal of the Czech Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs estimates that a 1% rise in migration to a German district leads to a 3% rise in house prices. James Cabral and Walter Steingress, both of the Bank of Canada, calculate that a 1% increase in an American county’s population raises median rents by 2.2%. As migration only has a small positive impact on wages, the rise in costs makes housing less affordable for natives. Housing demand depends not only on the number of people in an area but how densely they live. Often new migrants are willing to accept worse conditions than natives.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
A University of Waikato meta-analysis finds that a 1% increase in a city's migrant population raises rents by 0.5–1%, while Umut Unal of the Czech Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs estimates a 1% rise in migration to a German district raises house prices by 3%.
James Cabral and Walter Steingress of the Bank of Canada calculate that a 1% increase in an American county's population raises median rents by 2.2%.
Because migration has only a small positive impact on wages, rising housing costs make housing less affordable for natives, and restrictive planning laws in rich-world markets prevent supply from responding to demand.
Related Articles:
Housing and the American Worker— Wages net of housing costs were once substantially higher in high-density areas than low-density areas for workers both with and without college education, but over the past half-century that urban wage premium has persisted only for college-educated workers, not for those with a high school degree or less.
Why Immigration Is an Urban Phenomenon— Because many immigrants send remittances home or plan to return, part of their spending occurs in their origin country rather than where they work, so local prices apply to only part of their budget. The authors argue this makes immigrants less deterred by high local costs, concentrating them in expensive cities.
Importing Shelter Inflation— Shelter costs make up about 30% of the consumer price index, and their monthly inflation appears to be stabilizing above pre-pandemic rates rather than delivering the disinflation forward-looking data had implied. The author suggests this may be related to a surge in migration, estimated at 3.3m migrants in a year.
AI Summary.An analysis of government data finds the recent U.S. immigration surge is the largest on record, with net migration averaging 2.4m people a year from 2021 to 2023 and the foreign-born share of the population reaching 15.2% in 2023, up from 13.6% in 2020. About 60% of immigrants arriving since 2021 entered without legal authorization.
David LeonhardtNew York Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
A NYT analysis finds the net inflow of 8mm immigrants since 2021, 60% of whom were illegal, was the largest in US history. The foreign-born percentage of the population is now at a new high of 15.2%, above the previous record of 14.8% in the 1890’s.
How large is the recent U.S. immigration surge historically?
Core argument: Annual U.S. net migration averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a faster pace of arrivals than any other period on record, including the peak Ellis Island years.
The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data. Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people. That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850. About 60% of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data. The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2% in 2023, up from 13.6% in 2020. The previous high was 14.8%, in 1890.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Annual U.S. net migration averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a faster pace of arrivals than any other period on record, including the peak Ellis Island years.
The foreign-born share of the U.S. population reached 15.2% in 2023, up from 13.6% in 2020 and above the previous high of 14.8% set in 1890.
About 60% of immigrants entering the United States since 2021 did so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data, and total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.
Related Articles:
The Demographic Outlook: 2024 to 2054— The Congressional Budget Office projects the US population will grow from 342mm in 2024 to 383mm in 2054, an average 0.4% a year — less than half the 0.9% pace of the prior five decades. Immigration accounts for about 70% of growth over the next decade and for all population growth beginning in 2040.
Immigrants Are Becoming U.S. Citizens at Fastest Clip in Years— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processed naturalization applications in an average of 4.9 months over the first nine months of the current fiscal year, down from 11.5 months in fiscal 2021 and roughly in line with 2013–2014 speeds. About 3.3m immigrants have become citizens under the Biden administration, and 9m green card holders are currently eligible to naturalize.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration— The US foreign-born population rose by 6.6mm to 51.6mm over a roughly three-year span, lifting immigrants to 15.6% of the population, above the prior records of 14.8% in 1890 and 14.7% in 1910. The authors estimate about 13.7mm illegal immigrants now live in the US, a net increase of 3.7mm.
AI Summary.Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan estimate net immigration to the US will fall to roughly 750,000 a year, down from a peak of 3.3m in 2023 and an average of 919,000 a year in the 2010s, while Evercore ISI projects net immigration will turn negative, with outflows exceeding inflows by 600,000 by 2028.
Paul KiernanWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Deportations from the interior of the US peaked in 2009 at 243,000. Restrictions on immigration and deportations at scale could have a major labor market impact in segments like construction and hospitality with large numbers of foreign-born workers.
How much will tighter immigration policy reduce net immigration?
Core argument: Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan both estimate U.S. net immigration will fall to roughly 750,000 a year, the rate during Trump's first presidency, down from a 2023 peak of 3.3 million and a 2010s average of 919,000.
There is little recent precedent for the expected labor-force impact of Trump’s immigration plans. Removals of immigrants from the interior of the country (as opposed to at the border) peaked at 243,000 in 2009, at the depths of the 2007-09 recession, and averaged 126,000 a year over the following decade, when the job market was generally weaker than now. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan both estimate that net immigration—the difference between people entering the country and people leaving—will fall back to the annual rate during Trump’s first presidency of around 750,000 from a peak of 3.3 million in 2023 and an average of 919,000 a year in the 2010s. By contrast, Evercore ISI projects net immigration will actually be negative, with outflows exceeding inflows by 100,000 in 2025, rising to 600,000 in 2028.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan both estimate U.S. net immigration will fall to roughly 750,000 a year, the rate during Trump's first presidency, down from a 2023 peak of 3.3 million and a 2010s average of 919,000.
Evercore ISI projects U.S. net immigration will turn negative, with outflows exceeding inflows by 100,000 in 2025 and rising to 600,000 in 2028.
Removals of immigrants from the U.S. interior peaked at 243,000 in 2009, at the depths of the 2007-09 recession, and averaged 126,000 a year over the following decade, when the job market was generally weaker than now.
Related Articles:
Immigration Surge Has Slowed: Updated Estimates of Net International Migration— The authors estimate that net international migration to the US was close to 3.5m in one year — about 200,000 above the Congressional Budget Office's estimate, driven largely by higher undocumented entries — and project roughly 2.9m the following year, about 400,000 below the Congressional Budget Office's projection.
Immigration and the Macroeconomy After 2024— Projected net migration ranges from 3.7mm under a high-immigration policy scenario to negative 740,000 under a low-immigration scenario, implying four-year growth in the working-age civilian population of anywhere from 5mm to 15mm people. The authors project the resulting gap in annual US economic growth at roughly half a percentage point, or about $130bn.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration— The US foreign-born population rose by 6.6mm to 51.6mm over a roughly three-year span, lifting immigrants to 15.6% of the population, above the prior records of 14.8% in 1890 and 14.7% in 1910. The authors estimate about 13.7mm illegal immigrants now live in the US, a net increase of 3.7mm.
AI Summary.Around 1.14m people filed asylum claims in Europe in a year, the highest since the 2015 migration crisis, with claims expected to top 1m again; these figures exclude more than 4m Ukrainian refugees granted temporary protection in the European Union. Asylum seekers tend to be less educated and lower skilled than other immigrant groups.
Tom Fairless and Laurence NormanWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Last year 1.14mm people filled asylum claims in Europe and 2024 will likely see the same level. The majority who arrived in the Netherlands since 1999 and have left school “are unemployed, though the country suffers from extreme labor shortages.”
How large is Europe's asylum inflow, and who is arriving?
Core argument: Europe recorded a near-record 1.14 million asylum claims last year, the highest since the 2015 crisis, when more than a million Syrians fleeing civil war entered the bloc.
Last year, a near-record 1.14 million people filed asylum claims in Europe, the highest number since the height of the 2015 migration crisis in Europe, when more than a million Syrians fleeing that country’s civil war entered the bloc. Claims are expected to again top one million this year, with 513,000 claims made in the first half of 2024, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. Those figures don’t include more than four million Ukrainian refugees who have received temporary protection in the EU since the war began. Asylum seekers tend to be less educated and lower skilled than other immigrant groups, said Jan van de Beek, an independent Dutch researcher. Between half and two-thirds of all asylum seekers who arrived in the Netherlands since 1999 and have left school are unemployed and on benefits, even though the country suffers from extreme labor shortages, he said.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Europe recorded a near-record 1.14 million asylum claims last year, the highest since the 2015 crisis, when more than a million Syrians fleeing civil war entered the bloc.
The European Union Agency for Asylum counted 513,000 claims in the first half of 2024, with the year again expected to top one million, excluding more than four million Ukrainian refugees granted temporary protection since the war began.
Independent Dutch researcher Jan van de Beek says asylum seekers tend to be less educated and lower skilled than other immigrant groups, and that half to two-thirds of those who arrived in the Netherlands since 1999 and have left school are unemployed and on benefits despite extreme labor shortages.
Related Articles:
Germany Extends Temporary Controls To All Its Land Borders— Germany is extending temporary border controls to all of its land borders, expanding existing checks on its frontiers with Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Switzerland. The interior ministry says the controls are intended to restrict irregular immigration and guard against Islamist terrorism and serious crime, and that 30,000 people have been turned away under the existing checks.
Changing Sub-Saharan Africa’s Growth Trajectory— Sub-Saharan Africa's working-age population is growing nearly 3% a year, versus close to zero in much of the world, and is projected to exceed China's within about a decade and reach a quarter of the global total. With modest productivity growth near 2%, the region is likely among the world's fastest-growing.
The Rich World Revolts Against Sky-High Immigration— 15m people moved to rich countries over three years, the biggest surge in modern history, with net migration exceeding 3m to America, 1.3m to Canada and about 700,000 to Britain. As immigration surged, output per person fell in Britain and Germany, partly because recent arrivals are on average less skilled than residents.
AI Summary.A report estimates that a selectionist U.S. immigration policy—securing the border, reducing low-skilled immigration, and expanding high-skilled immigration—would cut future federal debt by trillions of dollars, providing over $2tn in net present value in the first year and over $200bn annually thereafter. Under the proposal, annual legal immigration falls from about 1m to roughly 860,000.
Daniel Di MartinoManhattan Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
.@DanielDiMartino notes higher-skilled immigrants reduce expected deficits, and proposes a policy of selective legalization, coupled with mass deportations to reduce Federal debt by about $1.9 trillion.
Would shifting immigration toward high-skilled workers reduce federal debt by trillions?
Core argument: The report's proposed legislative package would provide over $2 trillion in net present value in its first year and over $200 billion each subsequent year, excluding any additional productivity growth from high-skilled immigration.
By enacting a selectionist immigration policy—which requires securing the border from unlawful immigration, reducing low-skilled immigration, and expanding high-skilled immigration—the U.S. could reduce future federal debt by trillions of dollars over the long run. This report proposes a legislative package that provides over $2 trillion in net present value during the first year and over $200 billion each subsequent year, without accounting for the additional productivity growth resulting from high-skilled immigration. Furthermore, under these reforms, the annual number of immigrants who are new permanent residents decreases by about 15% after a temporary legalization program and a partial clearing of the employment-based visa backlog. Over the long term, annual legal immigration decreases under this plan from approximately 1 million in FY 2019 to approximately 860,000.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The report's proposed legislative package would provide over $2 trillion in net present value in its first year and over $200 billion each subsequent year, excluding any additional productivity growth from high-skilled immigration.
A selectionist immigration policy—securing the border against unlawful immigration, reducing low-skilled immigration, and expanding high-skilled immigration—could reduce future U.S. federal debt by trillions of dollars over the long run, according to the report.
Under the proposed reforms, annual legal immigration falls from roughly 1 million in FY 2019 to about 860,000, with new permanent residents declining about 15% after a temporary legalization program and partial clearing of the employment-based visa backlog.
Related Articles:
How Immigration Remade the U.S. Labor Force— The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 9m people have migrated on net to the U.S. in recent years, nearly matching the prior decade's total and lifting population growth to almost 1.2% a year. Fewer than 30% are lawful permanent residents; without immigration, growth would be 0.2%.
The Demographic Outlook: 2024 to 2054— The Congressional Budget Office projects the US population will grow from 342mm in 2024 to 383mm in 2054, an average 0.4% a year — less than half the 0.9% pace of the prior five decades. Immigration accounts for about 70% of growth over the next decade and for all population growth beginning in 2040.
Without Immigrants, US Working-Age Population Would Shrink— All net US employment growth since early 2020 has been among foreign-born workers, and without immigration the US working-age population would be shrinking — a pattern likely to persist for the rest of the decade. The jump in immigration appears to be enabling a soft landing that most economists had thought impossible.
AI Summary.An analysis of immigration court data on the 1.8m asylum seekers and refugees who arrived in the US in one year found that in battleground states about 72% settled in counties that voted Democratic in the prior presidential election, which contain roughly 60% of the US population. In those states, 85% settled in counties whose economies had grown.
Elena Mejía and Shawn DonnanBloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
A Bloomberg analysis finds that in 2023, 12% of migrants seeking asylum and refugees went to swing states, and 72% of these went to counties that voted for Biden in 2020.
Are new migrants settling in growing, Democratic-leaning counties?
Core argument: About 72% of migrants who arrived in 2023 in battleground states settled in counties that voted for Biden, while fewer than a third went to Trump counties, according to Bloomberg News's analysis of immigration court data obtained by Syracuse University researchers.
Bloomberg News analyzed immigration court data obtained by researchers at Syracuse University that show where the 1.8 million asylum seekers and refugees who landed in the US in 2023 have taken up residence. In past decades, these records for immigration court cases would not have offered as comprehensive a picture of new arrivals. Now, though, more border-crossers are turning themselves in to apply for asylum and, eventually, a work permit, making the data set more exhaustive. In the battleground states that will decide this November’s election, about 72% of migrants in 2023 went to Biden counties while less than a third went to Trump counties. Counties that voted for Biden four years ago are home to roughly 60% of the overall US population. Swing states received 12% of all migrants, with most going to blue counties like Philadelphia, home to Pennsylvania’s largest city, and Gwinnett, which is outside Atlanta. In swing states, 85% of migrants settled in places that saw GDP growth from 2019 to 2022, according to the latest available data.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
About 72% of migrants who arrived in 2023 in battleground states settled in counties that voted for Biden, while fewer than a third went to Trump counties, according to Bloomberg News's analysis of immigration court data obtained by Syracuse University researchers.
In swing states, which received 12% of all migrants, 85% settled in counties that saw GDP growth from 2019 to 2022, with most going to blue counties such as Philadelphia and Gwinnett outside Atlanta.
America Is Uniquely Ill-Suited To Handle a Falling Population— U.S. population growth slowed to about 7.4% in the decade to 2020, the slowest since the Great Depression, as the fertility rate fell from above the 2.1 needed for a stable population to 1.67. Because local and regional authorities levy 48% of all U.S. taxes—versus 20% in France and 6% in Britain—shrinking local revenue forces service cuts or tax rises.
Many Places Still Have Not Recovered from the Pandemic Recession— Metro areas still short of their pre-pandemic employment levels saw steeper job losses during the pandemic recession (16.1% on average versus 13.4% for recovered areas) and slower job growth beforehand (0.5% average annual growth over the prior five years versus 1.5%). Worker shortages have been especially acute in these lagging areas.
AI Summary.The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 9m people have migrated on net to the U.S. in recent years, nearly matching the prior decade's total and lifting population growth to almost 1.2% a year. Fewer than 30% are lawful permanent residents; without immigration, growth would be 0.2%.
Paul KiernanWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Since the end of 2020, net immigration has lifted the US population by 9 million people, contributing to annual population growth of 1.2%, the highest since the early 1990s. The bulk of the 6.5mm net illegal immigrants came across the southern border.
How much does immigration drive U.S. population growth?
Core argument: More than nine million people have migrated to the U.S. on net since the end of 2020, coming both legally and illegally, nearly as many as arrived in the previous decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates and projections.
Since the end of 2020, more than nine million people have migrated to the U.S., after subtracting those who have left, coming both legally and illegally, according to estimates and projections from the Congressional Budget Office. That’s nearly as many as the number that came in the previous decade. Immigration has lifted U.S. population growth to almost 1.2% a year, the highest since the early 1990s. Without it, the U.S. population would be growing 0.2% a year because of declining birthrates and would begin shrinking around 2040, the CBO projects. Most migrants didn’t come through regular legal channels. Less than 30%, or 2.6 million, are what the CBO counts as “lawful permanent residents,” which includes green-card holders and other immigrants who came through legal channels, such as family or employment-based visas.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
More than nine million people have migrated to the U.S. on net since the end of 2020, coming both legally and illegally, nearly as many as arrived in the previous decade, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates and projections.
Immigration has lifted U.S. population growth to almost 1.2% a year, the highest since the early 1990s; without it, the Congressional Budget Office projects growth of 0.2% a year and a population that begins shrinking around 2040 because of declining birthrates.
Fewer than 30% of those migrants, or 2.6 million, are counted by the Congressional Budget Office as lawful permanent residents, a category including green-card holders and immigrants arriving through family or employment-based visas.
Related Articles:
The Demographic Outlook: 2024 to 2054— The Congressional Budget Office projects the US population will grow from 342mm in 2024 to 383mm in 2054, an average 0.4% a year — less than half the 0.9% pace of the prior five decades. Immigration accounts for about 70% of growth over the next decade and for all population growth beginning in 2040.
New Immigration Estimates Help Make Sense Of The Pace Of Employment— The Congressional Budget Office estimates net immigration was 3.3m in 2023, versus the 1m it had projected, implying faster population and labor force growth than currently reported. The authors estimate this raised real economic growth by about 0.1 percentage point and, by lifting both production and demand, added little price or wage pressure.
Without Immigrants, US Working-Age Population Would Shrink— All net US employment growth since early 2020 has been among foreign-born workers, and without immigration the US working-age population would be shrinking — a pattern likely to persist for the rest of the decade. The jump in immigration appears to be enabling a soft landing that most economists had thought impossible.
