Notes

^1.

There is significant variation in the literature regarding the definition of second generation and third-and-higher generations. The second generation may include children born to one or two immigrant parents. Typically labour market outcomes are superior for those children with two rather than one immigrant parents. The third generation comparison group may include all children of domestic born—i.e., American or Canadian—parents, or it may include only those born with one or two White parents. There is no standard in the literature, and the authors include definitions when necessary.

^2.

The characteristics of the assimilation pattern, including downward (poor) assimilation outcomes, are often measured in this literature by a range of outcome variables related to crime, education, etc. (Portez, Fernandez-Kelly, and Haller 2009).

^3.

The concept of "ethnic capital" relates to the characteristics of the ethnic group to which an immigrant and this immigrant's children belong. The effects on outcomes are above and beyond those of the individual or the family. Some ethnic groups provide an environment that increases the opportunities for the members, and leads to increased chances of success in education and in the labour market. This may relate to the existence of networks, advantageous role models, peer group effects, and so on. Other groups lack such advantages. Empirically, "social capital" is often measured by the average educational attainment and average family income of the ethnic group to which an individual belongs.

^4.

The one paper that incorporated employment and unemployment outcomes used 2001 Census of Population data, and found that employment rates in the census reference week were higher among the second generation than among either the first generation or the third-and-higher generations and that unemployment rates were roughly the same for the second generation and the third-and-higher generations (Aydemir, Chen, and Corak 2005).

^5.

This includes occupations in the following fields: natural and applied sciences and related fields; health; social science; education; government services; arts; culture; recreation; and sport.

^6.

Including all persons aged 20 to 64 in the labour force, whether they have earnings or not. That is, Aydemir and Sweetman include the unemployed with zero earnings by assigning 1 dollar in annual earnings.

^7.

Where both parents were immigrants.

^8.

Including both individuals who are not members of a visible minority (Whites) and individuals who are members of a visible minority.

^9.

When employing controls for a number of variables such as community size, region, age, experience, industry, union status, and firm size, but not controlling for education.

^10.

This includes the 1.5 generation (immigrated to Canada at age 12 or younger) as well as second-generation and third-and-higher-generation Canadians (Bonikowska and Hou 2011).

^11.

More specifically, potential labour market experience, years of schooling, highest educational credential, part-time/full-time job status, marital status, language, location of residence, city/province, and detailed occupation and industry.

^12.

While negative, these gaps are significantly smaller than those reported by Aydemir and Sweetman (2007). However, the fact that the Skuterud's paper did not allow returns to education to vary across generations and included many more detailed controls, may account for some of the difference.

^13.

Aydemir and Sweetman compute estimates for various types of second-generation and third-and-higher-generation Americans. See Table 11 to 13 in their paper.

^14.

E.g., Boyd 2002, Aydemir and Sweetman 2007, and Hum and Simpson 2007.

^15.

Aged 25 to 54 and entered during the previous five years.