% WARNING: This file may contain UTF-8 (unicode) characters.
% While non-8-bit characters are officially unsupported in BibTeX, you
% can use them with the biber backend of biblatex
%    usepackage[backend=biber]{biblatex}

@techreport{LaborHubJ5,
 title = "Discounted Degrees: Employer Frictions and the Misallocation of High-Skilled Immigrants",
 author = "Chen, Willy",
 institution = "Cornell University ILR School",
 type = "Discussion Paper",
 series = "Labor Hub Discussion Paper Series",
 number = "J5",
 year = "2026",
 month = "October",
 URL = "https://laborhub.ilr.cornell.edu/publications/23/",
 abstract = {Immigrant over-education in the United States is well documented, but its mechanism is not. I develop a signaling model in which an employer friction, together with rules that bar paying
an immigrant less than a native in the same job, moves the adjustment from the wage to the job: immigrants keep their degrees and take jobs that require less education, by less at higher
degrees. Using a new LinkedIn panel that follows college graduates across borders, I find that at their first US job, immigrant master’s holders with a US degree and with only foreign
degrees are 4.1 and 8.5 percentage points more likely to be over-educated than comparable US-educated workers. The gap is smaller for doctorate holders, and positive for those with a
US degree at employers subject to the H-1B cap; it is largest, 16.0 points, for foreign-trained professionals such as physicians and lawyers, who must relicense. Over a decade, the occu-
pational wage penalty specific to foreign degrees halves for doctorate and professional-degree holders but narrows by only a fifth for master’s holders. The 2008 STEM Optional Practical
Training extension, which lengthened work authorization without changing training, raised US career starts among 2008–2011 STEM master’s graduates by 3.7 percentage points, and stayers moved into their field and into higher-paying occupations, mostly at employers subject to the H-1B lottery. The friction has more than one source, and part of it is a cost that policy can remove, not a productivity gap.},
}