Proponents claim that a statutory overtime premium, by raising the relative cost of overtime, may encourage firms to substitute employment for overtime hours. The author argues that there will be no real effects if firms reduce straight-time wages so as to offer the same package of weekly compensation and hours of work that was acceptable initially. Empirical analysis suggests that wage differentials do arise to mitigate the purely demand-driven effects predicted by previous models, but these differentials are not large enough to neutralize overtime pay regulation completely.

Using microdata from the 2000 Census, we analyze how the employment rates of foreign-born and US-born men vary with education. After a period of adjustment during the first few years upon arrival, the overall employment rate of immigrant men quickly approaches that of US natives. Among those with the lowest education levels, immigrants exhibit substantially higher rates of employment than comparable natives. This pattern is consistent with a simple theoretical model of migrant selectivity that jointly considers a potential migrant's decisions regarding where to locate and whether to work.

In tracking the later-generation descendants of immigrants, measurement biases can arise from “ethnic attrition” (e.g., US-born individuals who do not self-identify as Mexican despite having ancestors who immigrated from Mexico). We present evidence that such ethnic attrition is sizeable and selective for the third-generation populations of key Hispanic and Asian immigrant groups. In addition, our results suggest that ethnic attrition generates biases that vary across national origin groups in direction as well as magnitude, and that correcting for these biases will raise the socioeconomic standing of the US-born descendants of most Hispanic immigrants relative to their Asian counterparts.

Numerous studies find that U.S.-born Hispanics differ significantly from non-Hispanic whites on important measures of human capital, including health. Nevertheless, almost all studies rely on subjective measures of ethnic self-identification to identify immigrants' U.S.-born descendants. This can lead to bias due to “ethnic attrition,” which occurs whenever a U.S.-born descendant of a Hispanic immigrant fails to self-identify as Hispanic. This paper shows that Mexican American ethnic attritors are generally more likely to display health outcomes closer to those of non-Hispanic whites. This biases conventional estimates of Mexican American health away from suggesting patterns of assimilation and convergence with non-Hispanic whites.