Cigna Authorized Representative: Fill & Download for Free

Probably none. Zenefits appears to represent the same stable of companies (Cigna, Aetna, etc.) as everyone else in the biz. Basically, we have here a financial services house with fairly broad capabilities, and a kind of "wrap around" administrative capability. Nothing much new, here, in terms of the basic products and services, but the one-stop shopping in an online format might be a good marketing approach.As early as the mid 1980's Maryland agency BGS&G under the leadership of J. Glenn Beall and Ronald Screen had recognized the synergy that might be created in a financial services company which offered basically every kind insurance, benefits and administrative service. One flagship product was "Benepak," which was a customized employee booklet outlining every employee benefit, from free coffee to parking, to the the medical and retirement programs, and calculated the cash value of all. The principal software authors were David Skillman and Robert Shaffer who did the work in C, and later C++. Preparing the document gave the agency access to programs provided by their competitors and therefore allowed each department of the "house" to offer alternatives.Zenefits appears to be a natural and savvy evolution of Screen and Beall's concept, styled for the "Internet Age." However, there is nothing which suggests a threat to the many brokers and agents who provide similar services.

(I'm neither a Trump supporter nor Republican. I wrote much of the answer below in 2013, in response to a question about what aspects of the ACA people find most worrisome going forward. Four years on, I'll let you decide how true it remains.)—-Opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often breaks down into one or more of the following concerns:The way it was soldThe way it was passedThe way it was rolled outThe creation of another entitlement that we may not be able to afford unless dramatically restructuredThe questionable, constant modification of it by the Executive Branch (i.e., giving the executive branch, and neither the free market nor the legislative branch, enough influence over 1/7th of the economy), and resultant lack of durability, stability and consistency to new administrationsThe budget-busting increased out-of-pocket expense for many individuals compelled to participateThe decreasing choices for manyLet's take them each in turn.The way it was sold.Virtually every important promise we were told during the "selling" of what became the Affordable Care Act is now, and without even a hint of partisanship, provably, factually untrue."If you like your healthcare plan, you will keep your healthcare plan, period." False. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." False. "It is not a tax." False. "It will lower the average cost of health insurance for the typical family of 4 by $2500 per household." False. "We can do all this without adding one dime to the deficit." False. “It will lead to greater choice in the marketplace.” False.The level of misrepresentation and mendacity, not just before but after the details were known is truly historic for social legislation of such expense and import. Given the way that these facts were consistently, repeatedly misrepresented, it's entirely reasonable in my view for those that cast deciding votes based even in part on these representations to feel cheated.It is reasonable to ask -- What if we knew the truth then? What if the president and many in his party didn't so blatantly misrepresent the facts of the proposed, and later passed, law?"If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out." -- President Obama, address to Congress, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U...What if the media truly did its job and actually fact-checked the claim "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" when it actually mattered most?"The media, for the most part, fell down on the job when it came to dissecting the promises made by supporters (for example, that people could keep their insurance and their doctors); who would pay for the subsidies; why essential benefits were important; and why there had to be an individual mandate with penalties for not buying insurance." - Dropped Coverage - Trudy LiebermanIf we had a more accurate picture of the proposed new reality when it was still a bill, would we still have this law? Would it have passed? Did we opt into this actually knowing the most important tradeoffs we were making?I could stop here -- and this would be enough to explain reasonable opposition.But there’s more. Let's continue.The way it was passed.Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA) famously said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it..."Let's remember that for the initial vote in the Senate, many legislators were coaxed along with state-by-state payoffs, including the infamous "cornhusker kickback" which got it just barely over the line. (via Politico: Payoffs for states get Harry Reid to 60 votes - Chris Frates.)"You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 2009, in reference to billions handed out to various states to help move their Senator to a "Yes" vote on the ACA.Let's also remember that it was passed, with zero Republican votes, through a committee reconciliation process in the middle of the night, deliberately to avoid a sure-to-lose final vote in the Senate.And, more just to provide context than to argue that this should be prescriptive, it was also passed against majority popular polled opinion at the time. That one fact -- polling and popular opinion -- certainly shouldn't be determinative -- but it's a piece of legislation that has very broad impact on all of us and in some ways you could say that congress went against, or very much up to an even line, of "the will of the people" to make it happen. There certainly was no mandate that it be done; even those polls that suggested many people favored it now have to be severely discounted, given the frequent and blatant misrepresentations of the downsides of the plan.The facts are that it was not brought to final vote in the Senate the way laws of this size, expense, impact and import have always been passed, but rather rammed through procedurally in reconciliation after voters went to the polls in Massachusetts and elected Scott Brown to the Senate in a major upset -- this after hearing his primary message: "I will be the deciding vote on healthcare."Stepping back, historically -- there has never been such a substantial piece of social legislation passed through reconciliation -- not Social Security, not Civil Rights legislation, not Medicare, not Medicaid... nothing.The Republicans offered many amendments that were rejected -- from letting insurance companies sell insurance plans across state lines to use of Medical Savings Accounts to stricter rules for insurance companies to keep selling plans rather than cancelling them. Some of them actually might have helped the rollout. All were universally rejected, often with considerable scorn.Through all this, we are now seeing the effects of this entirely partisan legislation -- any modifications are vetoed by the other party, and last-minute workaround "fixes" are proposed that stretch the very constitutional boundaries of executive power. This is not, in my view, entirely Republicans fault -- it's in the way that it was rammed through, which dramatically hampers its ability to improve over time.The way it was rolled out.Do I even need to elaborate here? A website as easy to use as Amazon? A president, who, having been president 5 years, laments that IT procurement at the Federal level is just too darn hard? A president that tiptoes around an apology for mendacity and claims that he just didn't know that the website at the heart of his signature piece of legislation wasn't going to work until too late, and says that most of those plans that were canceled were “junk plans anyway”? An administration that initially claimed that the problems were due to overwhelming demand? A president that later realizes to his surprise that health insurance is a complex thing to buy? An administration that outsources a multi-million-dollar, privacy-and-security-laden project to a Canadian company after railing about private companies outsourcing US jobs on the campaign trail? An administration that once said it wanted to be the "most transparent in history" deliberately withholding vital information -- such as the realtime enrollee numbers (known hour by hour, day by day), or the actual makeup of the actual "enrollee" pool? A redefinition of words like "enrolled" to mean putting something in a shopping cart, not actually what most people might assume -- like paying? Insurance executives saying they've been repeatedly warned not to critique or share their concerns about the ACA?No. I don't.The creation of another entitlement that we may not be able to afford.We are now at $20 trillion in debt, roughly 100% of our GDP. Millions like me in the individual insurance markets have seen their insurance cancelled. The increase in prices for a worse plan for us is around 40%.Yet 80%+ of all "enrollees" have so far, registered not to pay in a thin dime -- but rather have signed up for Medicaid - which is 100% funded by taxpayers.Do I think Medicaid should help our neediest? Absolutely.But it's worrisome to me that we're accelerating the fiscal implosion of the Medicaid program. Simpson-Bowles (haven't read it? you really should: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/...) is very clear on this: Entitlements -- particularly Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security -- are breaking our fiscal back. And our economic security as a nation depends upon getting control of our long-term-debt."Commission members, and virtually all budget experts, agree that the rapid growth of federal health care spending is the primary driver of long-term deficits." - Bowles and Simpson commenting on their report, "Moment of Truth", 2010As well-intentioned as many of the sentiments are around the ACA, the solution is not, in my view, to layer on yet another major entitlement without thinking it through, via a law that far too few legislators actually read before voting.Medicaid rolls will swell. Many, many people that were OK bearing the full cost of private insurance will now get a subsidy. It's cost us $600 million so far to get a non-functional website. Billions more will be spent; millions of once-insured folks, relatively happy to continue to pay for 100% their own individual insurance, are now being subsidized by taxpayers, borrowing, and ultimately our grandchildren's prosperity.Is there good that comes out of the ACA? Sure! But there are substantial negative tradeoffs too, and these were severely misrepresented or never even discussed.The questionable, constant modification of it by the Executive BranchArticle I, Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in the Congress: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."Article II, Section III defines presidential powers, declaring with respect to laws that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for the president to modify settled law, and the separation of powers are there for deliberate reason!Yet well after the legislation was passed, the president came out with major new adjustments, exemptions for congressional staff, selective delays and additional mandates for insurers. He and his staff were effectively adding to, modifying and removing things in the law that were not permitted by legislators. And that is very worrisome indeed.Yes, the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate, if considered a tax, is Constitutional.But my point here is that I do not think that the president has the power to make such broad changes to settled law. For instance, he is choosing to selectively implement pieces to align -- lo and behold! -- with electoral calendars, and -- surprise! -- choosing favored groups (e.g., unions) to dole out special exemptions. This should be troubling to the left and the right and those of us in between -- this is not what the founders specified in the Constitution.If, say, a sitting president said that for 2014, blue cars can go 70 mph on the highway and red cars only 55 mph -- that certain speeders violating the law wouldn't be "enforced", I think we'd have some trouble with that. So too with any settled law. "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.""I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this." - Howard Dean, former governor, presidential candidate and chair of the DNC.Further, this constant ex-post-facto tinkering with mandates and what the insurance companies are allowed/required to offer must be making insurance executives' heads explode. (Tying some of these elements together, that he feels he cannot send it back to Congress for proper, legal modification is due in no small part to the way it was passed.)"On Thursday, [the president] passed a new law at a press conference. King George III never did that. But, having ordered America’s insurance companies to comply with the ACA, the president announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with the ACA. The legislative branch (as it’s still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered. That seems likely to work. The insurance industry had three years to prepare for the introduction of the ACA. Now the King has given them six weeks to de-introduce the ACA." - Mark Steyn - Thus Spake Obama"Obamacare is introducing a new form of government​—​improvisational government, characterized by continuous ad hoc revisions of statutory law by executive decree. This is a reversion to a primitive form that long antedates our Constitution and rule-of-law traditions. Transported to the modern world, it leaves the private sector in a state of constant uncertainty and subjection." -- The Silence of the Liberals"I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system, it is often as important how you do something as what you do. And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to write or ignore or negate Federal laws. That's a very dangerous thing." -- Johnathan Turley, law professor, author and Constitutional scholar, February 12 2014“To contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the Constitution, and is entirely inadmissible.”— U.S. Supreme Court, Kendall v. The United States, 1838The Increased Out of Pocket Costs for ManyTaking into account both increased deductibles and premium increases, the ACA is not affordable for many.The Decreasing Choices for ManyOver the last couple of years, we’ve seen:Aetna leave all ACA markets (Aetna exiting all ACA insurance marketplaces in 2018)Cigna leave all ACA markets (Cigna joins health insurance industry pullback from Obamacare)Anthem leaning toward leaving all ACA markets (Big Obamacare insurer Anthem seen as 'leaning toward exiting' many areas where it now sells plans)United Health leave all ACA markets (UnitedHealthcare to exit most Obamacare exchanges)Blue Cross Blue Shield leave much of Kansas and Missouri (Another Obamacare insurer just quit, leaving 25 Missouri counties with no options)Multiple insurance company executives declare that the ACA is in a “death spiral”22 of 23 nonprofits announce they are unprofitable, with 12/23 going bankrupt (Obamacare's Nonprofit Insurers Are Failing, Predictably)McKinsey & Co. summarize that insurers lost over $2.7 billion covering ACA plans just from 2010-2015 alone (Exchanges three years in: Market variations and factors affecting performance)If Centene leaves, Mississipi will have no insurersWhat does it look like when Obamacare explodes? This interactive graphic explains.This chart, even from ever-reliable ACA cheerleaders at Vox, tells an important story:At this writing, the United States has 3,007 counties — so that’s more than a third of counties with just one or fewer ACA insurers. The trend is not looking positive.Some specifics in the lawI understand (and generally support!) the goal of sensibly redistributing wealth and increasing the risk-pools. I take as a given that the goals of insuring the uninsured and never again allowing insurance companies to deny people for pre-existing conditions -- are laudable.But everyone has a view on what the limits of the federal government should be, and I personally disagree with the idea that, say, discretionary contraceptive care, is something that must, by law be subsidized at the federal level by everyone else in the nation, regardless of their need for it, and regardless of their ability to pay for it on their own. (And don't get me wrong, I'm just fine with with sex, thank-you-very-much! But it's optional, and come on -- you or your significant other can afford a condom, Ms. Fluke. We're not so dependent upon the largess from others that it should be a new right, that it's now society's burden to pay for it, are we?) My view doesn't come from a religious perspective, but rather a view on what constitutes something that the federal government should redistribute for us. If contraceptive pharmaceuticals, why not healthy food? Vitamins? Water? Those too are important for good health.And what of the requirement for all plans to pay for maternity care? Should we really compel the couple who cannot have children (e.g., infertility, octogenarians, elderly widowers, those who deliberately make a reasonable choice not to have kids, what have you) to pay for those that can? Do we really want to train people not to worry, that socialization will take care of every responsibility for you? (Can you think of any downsides to that approach?)On this, there are reasonable debates to be had depending upon your political perspective -- for me, I favor independence and personal responsibility where possible, and a strong safety net for those who are in need of it. But related to your question, I find it worrisome that the ACA inexorably moves "up" some assumptions about what society, and not the individual, should pay for -- because it risks a further dependency culture and loss of freedom.What's aheadAll the major vital signs of the ACA point to the fact that it’s in a fiscal death-spiral. The question is what do we do about it. Those who want to keep but strengthen the ACA have largely been silent on what specifically stops such a death spiral, and specifically how much it will add to our children's debt. We do know that insurance carriers are collectively citing billions of dollars of losses as they head for the exits, so it's hard to see how just throwing money at the problem structurally rights the ship.For me, I could actually get behind a single-payer system, if we could also still allow and regulate some completely private market options, which might evolve somewhat like public schooling (still with private options.)I could also get behind a private market Medical Savings Account system with catastrophic coverage subsidized for those that cannot pay for it.Neither of these should immediately suggest to ACA proponents that I’m against healthcare, or against providing better healthcare for our citizens. I just have a different strategy, and I see the existing data on the ACA as not really supporting the notion that the ACA is healthy and working effectively.Even if the ACA ran “smoothly” as designed, it doesn't solve a major healthcare cost problem -- and that is, at the time one is deciding whether or not to go ahead with a particular procedure (which may or may not be a good idea), the entity that actually bears the cost for that procedure is nowhere in the room.

High-skilled immigrant workers create new jobs.According to a 2012 report from the Information Technology Industry Council, the Partnership for a New American Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, research has found that “every foreign-born student who graduates from a U.S. university with an advanced degree and stays to work in STEM has been shown to create on average 2.62 jobs for American workers—often because they help lead in innovation, research, and development.”A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy concluded that immigrants were founders of 18 percent of all Fortune 500 companies, many of which are high-tech giants. As of 2010, these companies generated $1.7 trillion in annual revenue, employed 3.6 million workers worldwide, and included AT&T, Verizon, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Comcast, Intel, Merck, DuPont, Google, Cigna, Sun Microsystems, United States Steel, Qualcomm, eBay, Nordstrom, and Yahoo!A 2007 study by researchers at Duke University and Harvard University concluded that one-quarter of all engineering and technology-related companies founded in the United States from 1995 to 2005 “had at least one immigrant key founder,” and that these companies “produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005.” Moreover, these immigrant-founded firms have “contributed greatly to the country’s economic growth over time.”A 2006 study by the National Venture Capital Association found that, during the previous 15 years, immigrants started one-quarter of the public companies in the United States backed by venture capital. These companies had a market capitalization of more than $500 billion and employed 220,000 workers in the United States in 2006. The largest of these immigrant-founded firms were Intel, Solectron, Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo!, and Google.A 2001 study by researchers at Georgia State University and the University of Missouri-St Louis found that foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States are “disproportionately represented” among individuals elected to the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, among authors of scientific papers and patents, and among founders and chairs of biotechnology companies.High-skilled immigrants supplement rather than displace native-born workers.The 2012 report from the Information Technology Industry Council, the Partnership for a New American Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds that many STEM occupations “have markedly low unemployment, and that foreign-born STEM workers currently in the workforce are complementing, not displacing their U.S. counterparts.”There is full employment among U.S.-citizen STEM workers with advanced degrees. The federal government defines “full employment” as an unemployment rate of no more than 4 percent (to account for people who are “unemployed” because they are in the middle of changing jobs, moving, etc.). But for U.S.-citizen STEM workers with PhDs the unemployment rate is only 3.15 percent, and for those with master’s degrees it is 3.4 percent.In some STEM occupations, the unemployment rate is even lower. Unemployment among Petroleum Engineers, for instance, is 0.1 percent, for Computer Network Architects it is 0.4 percent, and for Nuclear Engineers it is 0.5 percent.Those STEM fields in which large shares of workers are foreign-born have low unemployment rates among native-born workers. For example, just under one-quarter of Medical Scientists are foreign-born, but native-born Medical Scientists have an unemployment rate of just 3.4 percent.According to a 2011 report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce: “High and rising wage premiums are being paid to STEM workers in spite of the increasing global supply. This suggests that the demand for these workers is not being met.”This demand is not only coming from industries that traditionally hire STEM workers, but also industries like Professional and Business Services, Healthcare Services, Advanced Manufacturing, Mining, and Utilities and Transportation. Employers in these industries are willing to pay top dollar for workers with STEM backgrounds, which has the effect of “diverting” many STEM graduates into non-traditional career paths.Native-born workers with S&E degrees aren’t being driven out of S&E occupations by immigrants; they are being lured into non-S&E occupations where their S&E skills are in high demand and command higher salaries. In other words, they face a wide range of opportunities, not a shortage of options.Native-born STEM graduates are the most likely to be “diverted” into non-traditional career paths for a variety of economic, social, and cultural reasons. And this “diversion” of native-born STEM graduates “will continue and likely accelerate in the future.” As a result, there is likely to be “an increasing reliance on foreign-born STEM talent among American employers.”High-Skilled Immigrant Workers Improve the Wages of Native-Born WorkersA 2011 study from the Institute for the Study of Labor found that earnings are higher among H-1B visa-holders than among native-born workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.Computer and Information Technology: After controlling for age differences, education, occupation, and industry effects, results show that newly arrived H-1B workers earn close to 7 percent more than U.S.-born workers of the same age, education, and specific occupation, with an additional increase of about 5 percent for those renewing their visas.Engineering: When age differences are accounted for, recent H-1B visa-holders experience a 13 percent wage advantage over native-born workers. Further, there is no statistical difference in earnings between new and renewing visa holders.Science and Mathematics: The research results show that there is no statistical difference in earnings between H-1B visa holders, naturalized citizens, and similar native-born workers.Healthcare: In this industry, H-1B visa-holders tend to earn more overall. Furthermore, the authors suggest that, when taking into account education levels, there is little or no statistical difference in wage earnings between H-1B workers and native-born workers.A 2013 study by the Brookings Institution found that H-1B visa-holders are paid more than non-H-1B workers within the same occupations among workers with similar experience. Overall, on average, H-1B workers earn higher wages than employed U.S.-born workers with bachelor’s degrees ($81,322 compared to $67,301), but are also 10 years younger and more educated.The same study found that for occupations with the most H-1B requests, wage growth in recent years has been much higher than the national average.From 2009 to 2011, there was nominal wage growth for U.S.-born workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, but that growth was relatively high for most prominent occupations with large numbers of H-1B applications. In particular, wage growth was strong in large H-1B occupational categories including computer occupations (1.3 percent growth) and engineering (2.1 percent growth).Wage growth was stronger than the national average since 2009 for every prominent H-1B occupational category except life scientists, and since 2000, all prominent H-1B categories except postsecondary teachers witnessed higher than average wage growth. Since 2000, wage growth was 2.7 percent for computer occupations, 3.0 percent for engineers, 3.4 percent for financial specialists, and 2.9 percent for mathematical science occupations.Furthermore, in the industry category with the most H-1B requests, Computer Systems Design and Related Services, wage growth has been much larger than the national average since 1990 (5.5 percent growth) and since 2009 (7.7 percent growth). This is in comparison to wage growth across all industries of 0.8 percent since 1990 and 1.6 percent since 2009.There is no direct correlation between immigration and unemployment.If immigrants really “took” jobs away from large numbers of native-born workers, especially during economic hard times, then one would expect to find high unemployment rates in those parts of the country with large numbers of immigrants—especially immigrants who have come to the United States recently and, presumably, are more willing to work for lower wages and under worse conditions than either long-term immigrants or native-born workers. Yet there is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level.An IPC analysis of 2011 data from the American Community Survey found that, at the county level, there is no statistically significant relationship between the unemployment rate and the presence of recent immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later.Foreign-born and native-born workers do not generally compete for the same jobs.Immigrants and native-born workers fill different kinds of jobs that require different skills. Even among less-educated workers, immigrants and native-born workers tend to work in different occupations and industries. If they do work in the same occupation or industry—or even the same business—they usually specialize in different tasks, with native-born workers taking higher-paid jobs that require better English-language skills than many immigrant workers possess. In other words, immigrants and native-born workers usually complement each other rather than compete.As data from the 2012 Current Population Survey illustrates, most immigrant and native-born workers are not competing with each other in today’s tight job markets.The data demonstrate—as have other, more detailed—that most foreign-born workers differ from most native-born workers in terms of what occupations they work in, where in the country they live, and how much education they have.What this means in practical terms is that most native-born workers are not directly competing for jobs with immigrant workers because they are in different labor markets. In fact, even within the same company, immigrants and natives may not be in competition with each other due to differences in occupation, education, and location.There is no correlation between immigration and minority unemployment.Cities experiencing the highest levels of immigration tend to have relatively low or average unemployment rates for African Americans. An analysis of 2010 Census data by Saint Louis University economist Jack Strauss found that cities with greater immigration from Latin America experience lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, and higher wages among African Americans.Latino immigrants and African Americans fill complementary roles in the labor market—they are not simply substitutes for one another. In addition, cities which have suffered the effects of declining population are rejuvenated by an inflow of Latino immigrants who increase the labor force, tax base, and consumer base.The grim job market which confronts many minority workers is the product of numerous economic and social factors: the decline of factory employment, the deindustrialization of inner cities, and racial discrimination, among others. Immigration plays a very small role. According to Yale University economist Gerald D. Jaynes, the impact on less-educated native-born workers of competition with immigrant workers “is swamped by a constellation of other factors (such as declining factory jobs and other blue-collar employment).”Manuel Pastor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, concludes that “in the policymaking process, the small size of immigration’s impact on the labor market must be kept in perspective.” There are many other, far more significant factors contributing to unemployment and low wages among African American men in particular, such as “the rising level of skill requirements of jobs, racial discrimination, and spatial mismatch between the location of employment opportunities and residential locations of blacks.”Economist Gerald D. Jaynes concludes that “the best statistical studies of the effects of immigration on the wages and employment of the native-born conclude that such effects are relatively small—and in any event secondary to other causes of low wages and unemployment.” Jaynes and a colleague “launched a large-scale statistical analysis to measure immigration’s effects on wages and employment of natives nationwide. To our surprise, no matter how we approached the data, our results showed either no effects or very modest effects for the least-educated black men.”Immigration creates new jobs.Immigrants create jobs as consumers and entrepreneurs. Immigrant workers spend their wages in U.S. businesses—buying food, clothes, appliances, cars, etc. Businesses respond to the presence of these new workers and consumers by investing in new restaurants, stores, and production facilities. And immigrants are 30 percent more likely than the native-born to start their own business. The end result is more jobs for more workers.Economist Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, concludes that “immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity,” and “there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”