So far after doing all the readings from the beginning of the class, I feel as if we have only touched upon the “struggles,”  horrible conditions and negative aspects the immigrants faced  regarding their journey to the “land of opportunities” or a place to better their lives. Beginning with their trip to New York on overcrowded boats-including some who weren’t even able to survive the ride, to the terrible and filthy living conditions in the tenements, now to even the jobs immigrants had to take upon to survive, let alone support their family. The journey of immigrants has been very much saddening rather than a feeling of relief since they left their home countries to live a “better” life.

In response to the question Eden poses: differences outweighing similarities, I believe that differences are truly inevitable; as time moves on things change, hence differences are bound to arise. However, there are also similarities between past and current immigrant jobs. For example, many immigrants face several hindrances in acquiring a job due to English speaking capabilities. Also, no matter how educated or skilled an immigrant might be much struggle is done in order to get a well-paying job. Furthermore, the use of social networking in means of getting a job is as much important now as it was back then, maybe even of more importance now due to the infinite number of different types of positions available. Regardless, the differences between the old immigrants and current immigrants are significant. The best example is the increase in number of professionals arriving to the country.

The concept of “professionals experiencing downward mobility when coming to NY” as said by Eden is definitely very interesting. Some of the reasons for this, I believe,  include the inability to speak/understand English, and not having legal paperwork to support their job position. There are some individuals I know of who are in this situation and their response to this was to earn quick money to send back home as sorting out legal documentation and being fluent in English requires much time. While driving a taxi or working in a convenient store requires less time as they are able to start immediately and also they can earn enough money to send back home. However, the fact that they have “made it” to America, or in this case, New York, suffices for some.

To answer Edens question about raising the status of women by actually having jobs verses reinforcing an inferior rank due to the jobs paying lower wages, I believe that the fact that they don’t have to sit home all day to take care of their family and actually being able to provide in another way by supporting financially is a great achievement. Other than that, women became more independent and if wished being able to survive on their own definitely raises the status of women.

No matter how hard it was for immigrants to survive here in New York, they were successful. Their struggle was for the better of their life and more importantly to secure the future of their children.

Like Susan, I was surprised at how accurately Chin seemed to describe the garment industry. After reading it, I asked my parents whether the wages were by the hour or by the piece, and the told me it was by piece. I never realized that whether the Chinese got paid by each piece they made and whether the Latino workers got paid by the hour was dependent on their lifestyle and circumstances. Also, the fact that their lifestyles differed was because of their primary goal in immigrating to New York. Because the Latino workers’ primary goal was to make money to return to their country, many of them did not have families in New York, and so they were able to follow a full work day schedule. Meanwhile, many Chinese immigrants intend to raise a family in New York, and so they need more flexible schedules to take care of their children.

I can’t imagine the working conditions for immigrants back then, especially in Five Points. When we read about the conditions in Ireland last time, I thought it was really terrible that the men had to travel to long distances for long periods of time to look for work. And now, Anbinder says that the same thing also happened in Five Points. It is really sad when families don’t hear from the husband/dad for months at a time, and often, these men either abandoned their family or died from accidents/diseases. And when this happens, it is all up to the woman to support her whole family.

Many of the immigrants around the late 1800s to the early 1900s found jobs in garment industries and other labor jobs. And now as Foner says, in a society that is more service based, and with immigrants that have a more varied range of previous occupations and skill levels, work for more recent immigrants is different than work for the earlier immigrants. Then there is the matter of immigrants replacing old immigrants in certain job areas. This leaves me wondering how things will change for future immigrants. Who’s jobs are they going to replace as the old group moves upward financially? What type of economy will form in New York in the future, and what type of jobs will the immigrants take then?

I agree with Eden that immigrants couldn’t be picky when it came to jobs, but I find it more interesting to discuss the ways in which certain ethnic groups acquired certain jobs. Living in New York City, I think most people are guilty of associating certain jobs and businesses with certain ethnic groups. Lee writes out a list of these stereotypes, classifying immigrant groups based on the types of stores they own. I can say with a degree of certainty that these ethnic groups do not have innate characteristics that draw them to certain types of work and that lead them to be more successful in those industries. Rather, as Foner points out, there are many logistical reasons as to why economic ethnic niches evolved.

Foner discusses some of these reasons, including location, skills learned in their homelands, and a shared religion. Also, she points out that it was beneficial for both the boss and the workers if the workers in they knew each other outside of work. It created a more optimal working environment, preventing disputes that would detract from the boss’s duties in other aspects of the business. Foner also discusses some of the differences between the old and the new immigrants, and how these differences contribute to the types of work they have. New immigrants tend to be of higher status in their home countries; however, do to the lack of proper certification in America, they are forced to work the same jobs as unskilled laborers. Additionally, the middle class is no longer as recognizable in New York. Many native New Yorkers are moving out of the city, and this emigration from the city has led to huge income disparities.

Anbinder also writes about the jobs held by immigrants, and seems to be entertained by the fact that despite the harsh conditions, very few returned to the home country. Not only that, but they send letters to their family and friends in their home countries describing the great living conditions and encouraging them to join them in New York. Foner does point that although many people held lower status occupations in New York than back home, many people were still paid more in these lower level jobs. As a result, there may have been some truth to the letters sent back home.

Overall, many immigrants came and found jobs working with people of their own ethnicities. For Jews, this was important when it came to the observance of the Sabbath and holidays. Also, certain ethnic groups were seen to be effective working in specific industries, and these stereotypes became self-fulfilling prophecies in many parts of New York City.

Immigrants are definitely an integral part of the American economy, both then and now. What’s interesting is that many of the immigrants from the turn of the century did not have skills to place them into better-paying jobs. Now, many immigrants have backgrounds as doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc., and although they cannot practice their professions here, they still appreciate the jobs that they receive because of the fact that they earn more than in their home country. According to Foner, they are able to work in “mid and upper level jobs” either immediately or in time (89).

Addressing Eden’s question, I don’t think lower-paying jobs reinforced the inferior rank of women, but I believe it did the opposite. They felt empowered and independent, and they were able to be of big support to their families. According to Foner, “… Jewish working daughters brought in nearly 40 percent of their family’s yearly earnings, slightly more than Italian daughters in the same situation” (111-112). It also gave them a chance to socialize with other girls their age and learn about American life. I understand that they worked in sweatshops and working conditions were far from acceptable in many cases, and maybe I’m just trying to only see the positive side, but I think it’s an important point to bring up.

Like Jacqueline said, garment shops still seem to be a job that immigrants flock to that has transgressed generations of immigrants and still exists today. Thankfuly, like Jessica said, conditions have definitely improved and are easier to work in. I just found it interesting that there was a difference between coethnics in the garment factories among the Chinese and then the Mexicans and Ecuadorians. According to Chin, the Chinese were comfortable recommending to family and friends different opportnuties that were available for work. They seemed to have much more freedom and a more flexible schedule. The Mexicans and Ecuadorians, however, were much more reluctant because they were not sure who to trust, especially if they are illegal and are afraid to be deported. Also, if the recruit was able to perform better, they were fired. In other words, while assisting coethnics worked with one group, it may not be beneficial for another, which I think was Chin’s point.

One final thing I noticed is that in African-American neighborhoods, I found it surprising that Jews and Koreans own most of the stores than the African-Americans.  Lee discusses in the chapter that that the Jewish and Korean owners inherited the property from their parents and relatives or would take loans from fellow coethnics. They found it as a way of moving upward economically, but for the African-Americans, a business was “the end in itself” (Lee 268). They had to take loans from the bank instead of from their coethnics to start and support their business.

I found these readings very interesting. A lot of the information seemed to be going against what someone might commonly believe. For example, African Americans, who have collectively experienced the most discrimination in America, were not comfortable banding together economically. I would think that after being oppressed for so long by whites they would look to form strong bonds amongst themselves to overcome any setbacks that they might face. Meanwhile in places like Five Points, where even the lucky immigrants were often out of work for part of the year, this “every man for himself” attitude often gave way to immigrant families seeking out others from their country to work together. Like Toni-Ann said, I wouldn’t be too willing to introduce other workers to my employer out of fear of losing the sweat shop job I need to survive. It’s interesting to try to think of the mentality you would adopt in this situation. Would you look out for your immediate family and your own interests, or do you reach out to other families in the same situation and attempt to weather the storm together? I can’t even imagine sitting in a little room doing manual labor for hours on end for very little pay. Meanwhile the boss is ready and willing to drop you for another immigrant who thinks he or she can live off less. I’d be a nervous wreck 24/7. To respond to William’s point about the bosses being careless, it’s still the same in many situations today. While there is a legal minimum wage, if a boss can find someone to work for less money at their company, they’ll often replace hard workers with what they see as bloated salaries.

When it comes to women in this time I believe, while the conditions they faced at work were terrible, it was still a step forward. The saying goes “desperate times calls for desperate measures”. Times were tough all over. Men were facing challenges supporting their family. This provided the opportunity for women to break through those outdated Victorian ideas. Unfortunately the introduction of women into the workplace in this time period didn’t lead directly to equality between sexes, but it was a big step. It’s a shame that it took disastrous conditions to make that step, but at least it happened.

Despite differences in ethnicity and race, age and gender, I think it’s safe to say that all immigrants arriving in New York at the turn of the century struggled to find a job. What struck me most was how willing early immigrants were to do crappy jobs such as scavenging the streets for rags and for how little they were willing to work. Although I know this is the focus of this weeks reading, I am compelled to turn my attention elsewhere.

In “The Saga of Johnny Morrow,” once again, we are confronted with the exploitation of children.  However, unlike the Italian immigrant children who were exploited by the infamous padrone, Johnny and his siblings were exploited by their parents! After reading this I immediately wanted to edit my response to last weeks reading and delete the portion which somewhat condoned the drinking and “unsavory” behavior of some of the Five Points residents. The Morrows were abusive, negligent parents who shouldn’t have had one child under their care let alone six! (Seriously, maybe Margret Sanger should have set up shop in Five Points instead of Brownsville!)

The presence of five organizations for orphaned children in this five-page narrative (the New Boy’s Lodging house, the New Haven Orphan Asylum, the Five Points Mission, the Children’s Aid Society, and the House of Refuge on Randal’s Island) suggests that Johnny’s story was not at all uncommon. So, after finishing the readings, I decided to do a little research.

It turns out that Johnny’s story is part of a much larger one. He and his siblings Annie, Willie, Jane, Margret Ann, and Jonathan were among thousands of children who were helped by the foster care movement that erupted in the early 1950’s.  As it says in the reading, both the Children’s Aid Society and the New Boys Lodging house were established by Charles Loring Brace.   Also known as the father of modern foster care, Brace’s life ambition was to save unfortunate children and shape them into “moral adults” capable of making good decisions.

Though he is considered to be the father of modern foster care, he was not responsible for opening the first orphanages. After volunteering for the Five Points Mission, Brace decided that the pre-existing orphanages relying solely on charity weren’t good enough and decided to open his own institution- the Children’s Aid Society in 1953. The goal of his organization would be to give orphans the means and training to save themselves. Brace focused mainly on finding jobs, lodging houses, free schooling and dental clinics for young boys living on the streets of NYC.

Brace also was the creator of the “Orphan Trains,” which brought orphan children (like Willie and Annie) to live with families in the Midwest. Brace’s idea was this: “In every American community, especially a western one, there are many spare places at the table of life. There is no harassing struggle for existence.”

The Randall’s Island House of Refuge, opened in 1854, was mainly for juvenile delinquents, however many street-children like Willie were brought in by the police. It really wasn’t an orphanage at all. Apparently, the “House of Refuge” had a reputation for “neglect, cruelty, and ill-treatment” according to an article from the New York Times archives that was published on August 5, 1865. After reading about the prisoner who was brutally beaten to death, it is no wonder why Johnny pleaded and begged for his brother’s release. Here’s the link to the article if you want to check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/1865/08/05/news/the-house-of-refuge-at-randall-s-island.html

I’m getting a really clear picture of what it was like to be an immigrant coming to America, and it wasn’t pretty.  Each week as I read more and more about what it was like, I learn more about the struggles immigrants faced to live here.  First we read about the difficult and dangerous journey of coming to America, staying alive throughout the long and unsanitary boat rides and staying healthy enough to be permitted into the country and not be turned away.   Then we read about the awful living conditions immigrants lived with once they got here- we read about the dirty, disgustingness of Five Points tenements, the murders, prostitution and drinking, the lack of toilets and showers, or even beds, for multiple families.  Now we move on to read about the horrendous working conditions immigrants had to put up with!  As Jackie, Eden and many other people wrote, immigrants took whatever jobs they could find in order to make a living, and worked under awful conditions and were fired as soon as their employers found workers who would work for cheaper wages.  To me this seems like it would lead to a downward spiral- everyone would keep accepting lower wages to get a job, but as people accepted smaller and smaller wages, they wouldn’t be making enough to live off and eventually someone would work for so little money that its be virtually free labor.

As other people mentioned, I thought it was really nice how some immigrants helped others find jobs.  It was truly risky to introduce a new immigrant to employers because the employer could either 1. Hire the new immigrant instead of you, or 2. Fire you for introducing them to a bad worker.  I don’t know if I would have taken the risk, but its nice to know that some people did.

Referring to Eden’s question about gender roles during migration to New York, I think that forcing women to contribute to household income and start working in low-paying jobs had multiple outcomes, and they are all relative.  I think that at the time, it appeared that working women had lower statuses than women who stayed and cared for the household, because back then, being a housewife was the expected, ideal role for women.  Being poor enough and “lowered” into working caused women to give up their “ideal” role as caregiver and so they were looked down upon.  Later, as working became the norm for women, and women rose in abilities and job positions and became professional equals to men, then women’s status was raised.   I do agree with ToniAnn that if it hadn’t been for times like this, where women were forced to work out of necessity due to poverty or war, then it could be very possible that none of the people in our class (aside from Prof Vellon + the two boys in our class) would be here learning, because we would probably all have 5 kids by this point and would be home making dinner and doing laundry.  One last point about women- I don’t think that since women were given jobs with lower wages that an inferior rank was reinforced because at first, these were the only jobs women could possess- they had no prior experience, and couldn’t do manual labor like men, so they had to take what they could get.  Later it evolved into an inferior rank due to the labels we put one everything.

It’s always nice when a week’s readings reach back to and build upon previous material (which I suppose shouldn’t be so surprising considering that most of our reading assignments are the consecutive chapters of a small set of closely related books… but I digress). This set of articles/chapters adds several interesting new layers to the Old v. New immigrant debate, most notably by digging deeper into the issue of economic mobility.  I have to agree with several of the posters below that the increased access of “new” immigrants to both professional and trade related education, by way of modern technology (cough*internet*cough) and vastly improved public service institutions (i.e. libraries, unemployment assistance programs, etc.), has left them astronomically better off than their “old” immigrant peers in the realm of mobility opportunities. And of course, as we mentioned last week, contemporary immigrants tend to arrive with much more in the way of marketable skills than their predecessors. That being said, finding employment isn’t exactly unicorns and rainbows for the “new”-er newcomers either: modern day immigrants must also deal with the reality that, as higher-education grows more common, all but the lowest paying work now requires increasingly lofty levels of minimum schooling. So on the whole, I’m with the majority of those below: the “new” and “old” are fairly different in a number of important ways.

Reading about the dynamics of inter-ethnic relationships on the NYC job market was also pretty interesting.  Eden makes a great point about such relationships being closely tied to chain migration, as immigrants within each ethnic group did tend to offer each other work and assistance along filial and communal lines of contact.  Much in the same way as it explained the formation of ethnic communities, this helps explicate why members of many ethnic groups often clustered about certain occupations and professions.  In fact (to bring this full-circle) by explaining why different immigrant groups didn’t, historically speaking, blur together into one amorphous blob, coethnic grouping does a good deal to make sense of how the various distinctions between “old” and “new”immigrants is made possible at all.

It certainly is interesting to learn of more modern immigration, and the contemporary situations of immigrants in New York City in both Foner, and the two articles. Eden asked if we believed the differences outweighed the similarities. I agree with Foner when I say yes: not only are modern immigrants more skilled, they have technology on their side.  Learning a foreign language or a skill is easy to do now, countless tutorials are only a google search away.  Not to mention the standard of living is undoubtedly rising across the world because of both the presence of technology, and the lowering cost of said technology.

While it is sad to learn that sweatshops still exist here, it is also a breath of air to learn of the improved conditions of women- and their chances at increased social and economic independence.  Regarding Eden’s question on women, I certainly do not believe that a low-salary job reinforces the low status of women.  As we read, it actually justified the social equality of women in many households.  Woman have not reached the pinnacle of social and economic equality, but I believe that in specialized workplaces, and in culture-neutral workplaces they are close!  Perhaps there are certain instances were a male-chauvanist establishes a glass ceiling with his female employees, but it goes both ways.  There are many jobs in which females only hire females (just like the instances we saw where minorities only hired those in their own co-ethnic group).

I also found Chin’s article intriguing, how she examined the reasons behind economic disparity in different races.  Lee also delved into this when she described the difference between the sweatshops of different nationalities- the innate cultural and social differences that was the basis for the difference in conditions for the workers there.