Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities for Minorities 9780231881296

Citation preview

Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities for Minorities

Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities for Minorities by Dale L. Hiestand

Foreword by John F. Henning Introduction by Eli Ginzberg

Columbia University Press N E W YORK AND LONDON

Prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Labor. Dale L. Hiestand is Assistant Professor of Business Economics, Graduate School of Business, and Research Associate, Conservation of Human Resources Project, at Columbia University.

Copyright © 1964 Columbia University Press First printing 1964 Second printing 196$ Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-20359 Manufactured in the United States of America

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the patient counsel I received throughout this study from Professor Carter Goodrich, now of the University of Pittsburgh, and advice and criticism at various points by Professors Donald Dewey, Gary Becker, and Jacob Mincer of Columbia University. David Kaplan of the U.S. Bureau of the Census and Harold Goldstein of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics were helpful in providing me with published and unpublished statistics. I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance furnished by the Office of Manpower, Automation and Training, U.S. Department of Labor. A special note of thanks is due to Ruth Szold Ginzberg for her skillful and careful editing, which helped to produce a much more readable volume with no sacrifice in essential content. My hardworking statistical assistants were Lois Greene Lipper and Carol Brown; my typists were Gertrude Dacken, Barbara Parkoff, Sylvia Leef, and Brenda Richmond. Specialists who may be interested in greater statistical detail will find it in another version of this study, Economic Growth and the Opportunities of Minorities: An Analysis of Changes in the Employment of Negroes and Women, copies of which are available in the Columbia University Libraries or through the University of Michigan microfilm service. DALE L. HIESTAND

New York January, 1964.

Foreword by JOHN F. HENNING Under Secretary of Labor U.S. Department of Labor T h e Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 authorizes the U.S. Department of Labor to sponsor research which will offer ways to increase employment opportunities for workers and improve their development through education and training. I am pleased to introduce Dr. Hiestand's book, which results from one of the first research investigations conducted under this Act. I consider it an excellent example of how research can contribute to an understanding of national problems and their possible solutions. It is also an excellent example of the kind of partnership that can take place between government and non-government agencies in developing such research. On the substantive side, I think the reader will want to note particularly the evidence which this volume presents on the strong connection that exists between economic growth and the expansion of job opportunities for minority groups. I was particularly impressed by the analyses of the conditions which enabled Negro men and Negro women to move up the occupational ladder and win acceptance outside of traditional agricultural employment. In this connection, it is noteworthy, too, that the rate at which Negroes can advance is significantly affected by their area of concentration—geographical and occupational. T h e materials in this book also show quite clearly that minority workers have frequently been able to realize faster progress than a mere projection of past experience would have indicated. All of this makes it clear that our continued economic growth is going to require that we use effectively our manpower potential, including that of minority groups. Dr. Hiestand's book comes at a time when American democracy is demanding that minority peoples share fully in the American promise of equal opportunity.

Introduction by ELI GINZBERG Director, Conservation of Human Resources Project, Columbia University It is with distinct pleasure that I introduce Dr. Hiestand's study. This investigation of Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities for Minorities was carried on under the auspices of the Conservation of Human Resources Project of Columbia University. It is always exciting when the results of an academic inquiry can contribute to public policy. As Under Secretary of Labor John F. Henning has made clear in his Foreword, Dr. Hiestand's analyses are cogent and relevant to the broad efforts now under w a y to help the Negro secure equal employment opportunity. I will seek to show below how they are also cogent and relevant for the further development of manpower economics. Continuing progress in a democracy can best be assured by a counterpoint between advances in science and scholarship and adjustments in private and public policy. T h e principal aim of the Introduction is to indicate very briefly the contributions that Dr. Hiestand has made in advancing our understanding of the employment patterns of minority groups. This book is the result of a contract between the U.S. Department of Labor and Columbia University. T h e Conservation of Human Resources Project was the instrumentality of the University charged with the responsibility of conducting the research. T h e Conservation Project has been engaged in basic research in human resources since its establishment in 1950, but staff continuity stretches back to 1939 when the University first made funds available for research in the field of human resources. T h e long-term research program of the Conservation Project has been concerned from the start with the factors that influence, for good or bad, the utilization of the nation's manpower resources. Consequently, the Conservation Project has always been sensitive to the

X

Introduction

employment problems faced by minority groups. W e presented selected phases of this subject in The Uneducated (1953), Human Resources: The Wealth of a Nation (1958), The Ineffective Soldier: Lessons for Management and the Nation, 3 vols. (1959), and The Optimistic Tradition and American Youth (1962). T h e several studies of the National Manpower Council to which the Conservation staff contributed also dealt with the development and utilization of the skills of minority group members. T h e Conservation staff conducted one study that was devoted exclusively to an appraisal of the changed economic position of the Negro since the outbreak of World W a r I I — T h e Negro Potential (1956). T h e present investigation, though differing in focus and method, shares to some degree the basic orientation of the earlier study. Both are concerned with how changes in the economy affect employment opportunities of the Negro minority. T h e current investigation is also linked to the on-going work of the Conservation Project. W e have recently completed a special study undertaken at the request of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on The Negro in the Armed Forces, where we were able to borrow profitably from Dr. Hiestand's methods and findings. W e are currently publishing results of a larger historical study, titled The Troublesome Presence. While the major thrust of this investigation is a reappraisal of the counterpoint between American democracy in thought and action and the status of the Negro from the colonial period to the present, it could not ignore the economic aspects of this duality. Several of the important findings emerging from the present study have been used to underpin the historical analysis of the causes and magnitude of recent changes affecting the Negro. Dr. Hiestand's approach in carrying through his investigation of the impact of economic growth on employment opportunities for minority groups follows that of the Columbia school of economists, which was started by the late Professor Wesley Clair Mitchell; it consists of the systematic analysis of a large body of empirical data. Particularly, Dr. Hiestand has organized the occupational information collected every ten years by the Bureau of the Census since 1910 concerning the majority group in the labor force—white men—and

Introduction

xi

three minority groups—Negro men, Negro women, and white women. The Census materials enabled him to investigate several dimensions of employment, principally changes in the occupational level and the industrial attachment of minority group members. In addition, he explored in a preliminary fashion the manner in which changes in employment opportunities for minorities were related to geographic differences and to income and technological trends in the economy. The heart of Dr. Hiestand's analysis is an appraisal of the extent to which the several manpower groups—white men, Negro men, white women, and Negro women—accounted for the growth of different fields of employment in the several decades. His principal tools are two distinct but closely related measures. On the one hand, he compares the proportion provided by each of these different manpower groups of the total employment in particular sectors at the beginning of the decade with the proportion that each manpower group contributed to the net growth (or decline) of the field during the decade. His second measures are in terms of percentage changes in the course of a decade in total employment and in the employment of the different manpower groups within a particular occupation or industry. Underlying Dr. Hiestand's methodology is the assumption that a deeper understanding of the interrelations between economic growth and employment opportunities for minorities can be gained only from a meticulous study of detailed changes. But, within this general commitment, Dr. Hiestand proceeded at two levels. In the early chapters of his book he has considered the entire period from 1910 to i960, discussing the changes that occurred from one decade to another. While many of these changes were in the same direction during the half century, the rates of change often varied substantially from one decade to the next. One of the more important contributions made by Dr. Hiestand was to work out reasonably consistent data by occupation, race, and sex for the period 1910 to i960. Dr. Hiestand has supplemented his long-term analysis with a careful empirical investigation of the 1940-50 decade. This decade represented a period of substantially full employment during which Negro

xii

Introduction

men and Negro women as well as white women had many new and improved employment opportunities opened to them. With the detailed data of the i960 Census now becoming available, students will be in an excellent position to replicate Dr. Hiestand's analysis of the earlier decade. In the later chapters of his book Dr. Hiestand raises questions concerning the employment changes of minorities between 1940 and 1950 in different states. He thus alerts us to the need to consider geographic factors in manpower analysis. W e have a mobile population, and many people move in response to better job opportunities. But within any ten year period only a relatively small proportion of even a very mobile population is likely to migrate. It is, therefore, important to consider how the specific developments in different states influence the opportunities of a minority. While most people who improve their economic circumstances do so by obtaining a better job, it is also possible for many significantly to improve their position through increased earnings. Dr. Hiestand opens the question of whether the new and improved employment opportunities that became available to women and Negro men between 1940 and 1950 occurred in sectors of the economy where wage rates were rising rapidly or slowly. The final question that the author raises for systematic analysis is whether it appears that changes in technology in different industries are associated with opening up of employment opportunities for minority groups. Here, as with geographic and income determinants, the author's efforts are exploratory rather than definitive. But in each instance he sets forth clearly the central questions that must be faced and culls the available evidence that can be used to formulate answers. Findings, positive and negative, emerge from this study at several levels—from the most general, dealing with the labor force as a whole, to such specific matters as the changes in the employment opportunities of Negro men and women in a particular state. For example, it has long been recognized that the over-all demand for labor has a determining influence on whether manpower from certain groups, such as immigrants and women, will be drawn into the labor force. Dr. Hiestand suggests a broader generalization. Con-

Introduction

xiii

siderations of supply may be more important in determining the growth of the majority group in the labor force, while demand may be the more important factor in the growth of the minority group in the labor force. He has found that demand is a highly operative factor in the employment of Negro men. Another important finding concerns the conventional belief that for many decades Negro men and women experienced difficulties in improving their position in the labor market because they had been forced to compete with another important minority group—immigrants. In reviewing the evidence for the half century, 1910 to i960, Dr. Hiestand fails to find clear-cut support for this assumption. Other factors, such as the rate at which the economy was growing, apparently wash out the significance of competition between minorities. Dr. Hiestand notes that during the half century white women represented by far the most significant source of additional manpower. But he was unable to find consistent relationships between the expanded use of white women and the growth of specific occupations and industries. He did, however, discern important regularities in the employment of Negro men. For the most part, their employment in specific fields increased when total employment in these fields was also expanding. In most instances the rate of increase in the employment of Negro men was above that of white men. When Negro men accounted for a small proportion of the manpower resources in a sector at the beginning of the decade, they provided a small percentage of the manpower added; when they comprised a larger segment at the beginning, they provided a larger percentage of the new manpower. In slow-growing or declining fields, Negro men frequently replaced white men. We know that the occupational structure of the labor force is undergoing rapid change. Dr. Hiestand extends our knowledge of the part played by minority groups in this process. Prior to 1910 Negroes had provided a significant source of the manpower in the service and unskilled occupations. During World War I they made their initial break-through into semiskilled occupations. Few changes occurred during the 1920s; and in the depressed 1930s their position on the occupational ladder worsened in many respects. During the 1940s

xiv

Introduction

Negroes made substantial gains in operative occupations and made initial penetrations into skilled and white collar occupations. The 1950s saw a continuation of these gains and a break-through into sales and the broader spectrum of professional occupations beyond the conventional fields of teaching and the ministry. As late as i960 Negroes did not comprise any significant proportion of the manpower resources in managerial and proprietary occupations. Although Dr. Hiestand sought for relationships between changes in Negro employment and wage levels in particular fields, he was unable to discover any firm connections. Likewise, he was unable to find a consistent relationship between the rate of technological change in various industries and increased employment of minority groups. His explanation for these negative findings is as simple as it is revealing: "In general, the minority group is too small to exercise an independent influence on events or for employers to take consistent actions with regard to them." Despite his careful efforts to relate changes in minority group employment to specific economic variables, Dr. Hiestand concluded that his efforts had been largely in vain. It is his conclusion, in light of this negative finding, that the key determinants of the growth of minority group employment are noneconomic forces, such as changed attitudes and behavior of the white majority with respect to minorities. The changes in attitudes that have opened up new opportunities for Negroes are reflected in hiring policies, in the educational and training programs available to them, in their eligibility for trade union membership, and in other ways. T w o comments are invited by the author's conclusion. First, negative findings are an essential link in the progress of a discipline. Unless current assumptions and preconceptions are put to the test of the evidence, error is likely to be perpetuated, thereby contaminating the work that follows. One of Dr. Hiestand's principal contributions has been to rid the field of labor market analysis of a number of pervasive errors. This he has been able to do by developing new and significant bodies of data and analyzing them skillfully. Secondly, there is great significance in Dr. Hiestand's conclusion that the explanation of the changed economic position of minority

Introduction

XV

groups, particularly Negroes, must be sought in changes in the broad political and social environment. Every scholar must work with the tools of his discipline, but he must remain alert to what lies beyond his domain. It is unlikely in the second half of the twentieth century that the answers to complex economic problems can be found completely within the traditional confines of economics. With the possibility of a war of unbelievable destruction never more than a few minutes away, with human injustice at home and abroad crying for remedy, with the affluence of the few uneasily counterpoised by the want and misery of the many, with technology at once a promise and a threat, our nation cannot permit its economy to operate under its own momentum, solely responsive to the maximization of profit. For better or worse, economics must once more embrace political economy and even moral philosophy.

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD, BY JOHN F.

V HENNING

INTRODUCTION, BY ELI GINZBERG I II

VII IX

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND MINORITY MANPOWER

I

MINORITIES AND CHANGING E M P L O Y M E N T PATTERNS

6

Minority Groups in the Growth of the Labor Force, 6; Negroes and the 1930s, 13; Minority Groups in the Growth of Occupational Fields, 14; Farming, 16; Nonfarm Occupations, 17; White Collar Sector, 20; Manual and Service Sector, 21; Occupational Fields in the White Collar Sector, 22; Occupational Fields in the Manual and Service Sector, 24; Summary, 27 III

MINORITY MANPOWER AND THE GROWTH AND D E C L I N E OF OCCUPATIONAL FIELDS

29

The Stability of Minority Group Patterns within Occupational Fields, 30; Growth of Occupational Fields as a Factor in the Increase of Minority Manpower in Them, 34; Relationship between Growth Rates of Fields and of Minority Manpower, 35; Growth Rates of Groups within Fields, 37 IV

T H E CHANGING POSITION OF NEGRO W O R K E R S

41

The Changing Occupational Distribution of Negro and White Workers, 41; Trends toward "Equality" in Individual Fields, 47; An Index of Relative Occupational Position, 51; Findings re Men, 53; Findings re Women, 54; Significance of the Findings, 55 V

MINORITY MANPOWER IN THE GROWTH AND D E C L I N E OF

1940-1950 58 Minority Groups in the Growth or Decline of Occupations, 59; The Role of Negroes in the Growth or Decline of Occupations, 60; Factors in the Increased Employment of Negroes OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES,

xviii

Contents in Occupations, 63; Growth of Occupations as a Factor in Increased Minority Employment, 65; Minority Groups in the Growth and Decline of Industries, 69; Factors in the Increased Employment of Negroes in Industries, 72; Conclusion, 75

VI

M I N O R I T Y MANPOWER AND OCCUPATIONAL T R E N D S IN SELECTED

1940-1950 Employment of Negroes in the Several States, 79; Occupational Growth Patterns, 81; Changes in the Employment of Negro Men, 81; Changes in the Employment of Women, 86; Changes in the Employment of Negro Women, 90; Conclusion, 92 STATES,

VII

INCOME T R E N D S AND MINORITIES AS A SOURCE OF MANPOWER,

1940-1950 Income Changes and Minority Employment, 93 VIII

IX

78

93

TECHNOLOGICAL C H A N G E AND MINORITIES AS A SOURCE OF MANPOWER, 1940-1950 100 Measures of Technological Change, 103; The Findings, 105; Conclusion, 106 T H E SIGNIFICANCE OF ECONOMIC G R O W T H FOR MINORITIES

109

NOTES

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

125

Tables

I Total Labor Force, by Race and Sex, 1910-1960 II Occupational Distribution of Labor Force, by Race and Sex, 1910-1960 III Net Growth of Labor Force, by Race and Sex, 1910-1960 IV Percentage Distribution of Net Growth of Labor Force, by Color and Sex, 1890-1960 V Potential New Manpower from Immigration and Negro Population, 1910-1960 VI Percentage Change in Manpower in Occupational Sectors, by Race and Sex, 1910-1960 VII Percent of Total Employment and of Net Increase in Occupational Sectors, by Population Groups, 1910-1960 VIII Index of Change and Degree of Conformity in the Proportion of Manpower Accounted for by Minority Groups, by Occupational Field, 1910-1960 IX Percentage Distribution of White and Negro Labor Force, by Occupational Field, 1910-1960 X Percentage Distribution of Negro Labor Force in Occupational Fields, by Sex, 1910-1960 XI Ratio of White to Negro Workers, by Occupational Field and Sex, 1910-1960 XII Index of Occupational Position of Negroes Relative to White Workers, by Sex, and of Females Relative to Males, by Race, 1910-1960 XIII Changes in Employment within Occupations, Total and Race-Sex Groups, 1940-1950 XIV Index of Change in Proportion of Manpower Supplied by Minority Groups, Frequency Distribution, for 66 Occupations, 1940-1950 X V Index of Change in Proportion of Manpower Supplied by Minority Groups, Frequency Distribution, for 155 Occupations, 1940-1950

7 8 10 n 12 15 18 32 42 44 48 53 59 66

67

xx XVI

Tables

Changes in Employment in Industries, Total and Population Groups, 1940-1950 XVII Index of Change in Proportion of Manpower Supplied by Minority Groups, Frequency Distribution, for 77 Industries, 1940-1950 XVIII Patterns of Growth in Fields of Employment XIX Percentage Distribution of Minority Groups, by Occupational Field, in Four States, 1950 XX Changes in Manpower in Occupational Fields: Total Employment, Negro Male and Female Employment, and Total Female Employment, Country-Wide and in Four States, 1940-1950 XXI Number of Occupations in Which the Employment of Population Groups Changed Differentially, 1940-1950

Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities for Minorities

CHAPTER I

Economic Growth and Minority Manpower The purpose of this study is to examine selected aspects of the relationship between the changing employment patterns of minority groups and the growth of the economy. The group with which we will be mainly concerned are Negroes, both men and women. In addition, we will consider the role of white women in the labor force. We will review the changes in the occupational patterns of these groups over the past half century and will present an analysis of the relationship between these changes and other changes in the economy. Years ago it was believed that the development of a modern economy leads to a decline in skill levels and to a general reduction in the occupational status of the labor force. More recently we have realized that as an economy grows there is a tendency for new occupations to appear and for the general skill level to rise. In order to fill these newer, more demanding occupations, a high degree of mobility is required of the working population, that is, workers must shift into occupations different from those of their parents.1 The changes in patterns of employment of the total labor force that accompany the process of economic growth have been extensively analyzed by Colin Clark, Simon Kuznets, and others.2 The changing occupational position of minority groups has been subject to much discussion in recent years but little careful analysis. This is surprising, particularly in light of the wealth of occupational data collected in the decennial Census. Only with regard to employed women have there been continuing efforts to analyze national occupational trends and to relate them to underlying economic changes.3 For many years the occupational trends of foreign-born groups and their offspring excited considerable interest. This interest lagged in the 1930s and has only recently been revived by the work of

2

Economic Growth

and Minority

Manpower

E. P. Hutchinson, who has traced the changing occupational characteristics of foreign-born groups after 1870. Hutchinson's primary interest was in the changes in the relative concentration of immigrants and first generation Americans—that is, whether they were "over-" or "under-represented"—in the several occupational categories compared to workers whose parents were native born. His extremely interesting study is essentially descriptive, for he made almost no attempt to relate these changes to economic or other developments.4 Kuznets has written in a somewhat more theoretical and analytical vein about the factors affecting the occupational position of Jews, not only in the United States but in other countries.5 The analysis of occupational trends among Negroes has been even more limited. Gunnar Myrdal's study of twenty years ago established the last major landmark.6 Robert Weaver studied changes in the employment opportunities of Negroes during World War II, but his approach was primarily narrative, based on scattered incidents and short-run changes.7 John Hope, II, analyzed the changes in the occupational patterns of Negroes between 1940 and 1950 but made no reference to the past and gave little attention to underlying causes.8 The U.S. Department of Labor annually publishes data on the changing occupational distribution of Negroes, but the analysis is cursory.9 In a more analytical vein, Gary Becker constructed an index of the occupational position of Negro men compared to white men. He grouped the entire male labor force into three "skill level" classifications, but his final figures referred only to 1910, 1940, and 1950. He ascribed the changes that he discovered to general factors, such as increased education, migration, and changes in the degree of discrimination.10 In commenting on Becker's findings, Elton Rayack asserted that the changes in the relative occupational position of Negro men reflected quite another general factor: an over-all shortage of labor during and immediately after World War II. 11 There have also been a number of limited studies that analyze changes in particular fields of employment or geographical areas.12 Thus, there has been no study that covers the long-run trends in the employment of Negroes in any except summary fashion. Moreover, the literature reveals no analysis that considers the impact of

Economic Growth and Minority Manpower

3

changing economic conditions in particular fields on the employment of minorities. It would be impossible to exploit fully in one study the vast amount of Census and other data that are available. This study starts with an analysis of the long-run trends in the occupational patterns of Negroes and of women in relation to the growth of fields of employment. The analysis will be directed primarily to changes in majority-minority relationships within specific fields rather than to changes in the distribution of minority groups among fields. The long-run analysis will be buttressed by a more detailed investigation of the 1940-50 decade, covering not only national occupational trends but also national industrial trends, occupational trends within states, and other economic changes. There are some accepted notions about the relationships between minority groups and occupations and the way they change over time. These notions provide a series of initial hypotheses that can be examined. The first is that there are definite patterns in the kinds of occupations held by various subgroups in the population. Theodore Caplow writes that in every society occupations held by men can be distinguished from those held by women and that different age groups are found in different occupations. In almost every society, he continues, a special occupational role is filled by "strangers," who differ from the majority by race, religion, country of origin, etc. 13 The National Manpower Council has discussed the concept of "women's" and "men's" jobs.14 Donald Dewey reports that most Southerners believe that their economy is divided into "white" and "Negro" jobs. 15 Hutchinson comments about the extreme degree of occupational specialization of some racial and national groups and observes that "the labor force of the United States is a mosaic of intermingled peoples of which some, if not all, have their own distinctive patterns of distribution." 16 A second popular concept is that these distinctive patterns of population subgroups within certain occupations are relatively stable over considerable periods of time. Dewey thought, for instance, that the distribution of jobs according to race in the South had remained es-

4

Economic Growth and Minority

Manpower

sentially unchanged during the first half of the present century. 17 Janet Hooks reported that, even though the number of women in the labor force had increased between 1910 and 1940 at a faster rate than the number of men, this had no marked effect on the proportions of women and men in individual occupations.18 A third assumption is that various population subgroups can be used as alternative labor resources: that they are to some degree in competition with each other. In the South, Donald Dewey observes, "direct personal competition [between Negroes and whites] is . . . limited largely to 'isolated' jobs where a person works on his own . . . which are also dead end jobs. For all other employment, Negroes and whites compete not as individual workers on their respective merits but as 'en bloc' work groups." 19 Similar observations have been made of Negroes versus whites in the North, as well as men versus women, Negroes versus immigrants, Mexican-Americans versus Negroes, etc. Dewey examined, for instance, the "en bloc" competition that existed between Negro men and white women for semiskilled jobs in North Carolina when shortages of white men developed during World War II.20 It has been contended that such competition often led to a shift from employing one group to employing another. One of the most important assumptions that we will examine is that rapid growth in a field of employment leads to increased opportunities for minorities in that field. It is, of course, well established that both immigration and internal migration rise or fall when employment as a whole is expanding or contracting.21 The question here is somewhat different: it is concerned with the relationship between opportunities for minorities and the rate of growth in a specific field of employment. For instance, the Federal Immigration Commission reported in its study of large-scale immigration during the several decades preceding 1911 that, "coincident with the advent of these millions of unskilled [immigrant] laborers, there has been an unprecedented expansion of the industries in which they have been employed." 22 This careful statement, avoiding comment on which was cause and which effect, nevertheless indicates a relationship between rapid growth and the employment of the minority groups. With regard to this relationship, two positions can be discerned.23

Economic Growth and Minority Manpower

5

One holds that an expansion of the numbers of a minority group in a field is the result of their participating proportionately in the expansion of the fields in which they are already employed. The changing occupational structure of the group, therefore, reflects the differential rates of growth of the fields in which they supply varying proportions of the manpower. In this view, for instance, the increasing concentration of the female labor force in professional, clerical, and operative occupations is the result of the rapid growth of these fields, in which women were already quite important, in contrast to the relatively slow increase in the number of women in skilled and unskilled manual fields, which grew at an average or slower rate and which have contained relatively few women. The second view holds that minority manpower is not likely to enter stable fields but will find opportunities in rapidly growing fields. Moreover, the faster a field grows, the more likely it is that there will be recourse to minority groups as a source of manpower. Both of these positions hold that the increased employment of minority manpower in a field of employment depends in some manner on the rate of growth of the field. There are, of course, other theories about factors that lead to shifts in employment patterns, and some of these factors are a part of the process of economic growth. T w o will be examined here: changes in income levels and changes in technology in particular fields. A careful analysis of the changes that have taken place in the employment patterns of minorities will in itself be a contribution. If, in addition, these changes are found to be related to changes in the underlying economic situation, that will help us not only to anticipate future changes but also to formulate policies designed to bring about changes. If, we find, on the contrary, that changes in the underlying economic situation have no regular or consistent effect on changes in the employment of minorities, that, too, has definite policy implications.

CHAPTER II

Minorities and Changing Employment Patterns In 1910 the American labor force included 37.4 million workers. B y i960 it had increased to almost 70 million. The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the role that the three minority groups under investigation here—Negro men, white women, and Negro women—played in this growth of the labor force. W e will address ourselves to two questions. T o what extent has each of these minority groups contributed to the growth of the total labor force? T o what extent has each contributed to the growth of specific fields of employment? This chapter is essentially descriptive; in it we will present the basic data that indicate long-run employment trends for population groups and occupational fields. In subsequent chapters we will approach these data more analytically and attempt to answer the following questions: As individual fields of employment have grown, have they continued to rely on the same population groups? Are changes in the employment pattern in various fields of work related to the growth of the fields themselves? T o what extent do increases in the number of Negroes and of women in various fields reflect the growth of the fields themselves, on the one hand, or changes in employment patterns, on the other? H o w has the growth of the economy been reflected in the employment patterns of minority groups? In what fields of employment have these minorities made strides toward more equal employment opportunities? When were these strides made? What fields continue to show disparities in the relative numbers of minorities employed? MINORITY GROUPS IN T H E GROWTH OF T H E LABOR FORCE

Table I shows the growth of the work force as a whole from 1910 to i960, by sex and race. Table II traces the growth and decline of

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

7

broad occupational groupings b y race and sex over the same period. Various analysts have developed data for this period for the total force and its principal components by employment status and occupational group, but not according to race or sex. 1 Actually the data in Tables I and II are not fully comparable throughout the period because the data were reported using slightly different technical definitions of race or color and labor force or employment status from time to time. However, they are reasonably accurate for presenting the broad sweep of changes over the half century. Table I TOTAL LABOR FORCE, BY RACE AND SEX, 1910-1960 (in thousands)

1910

Total White Negro Male White Negro

32,615 4.75 S? ti U i n o «3 M ¿t Sa H S i) "C >h O O u C0) > V > H « CL -g r-o i > t; h o -O £ • c m u OO ?te o o ' ^d £ -H O « o ™ .y si? .a « -o w ^ 13 G u P « o G va -a g .3 ti PM O^ =V-3 -TUO) o « ¡5 PH OI O « C/Í E tiJQ ^^ So Og i. u h«

20

Minorities and Changing Employment Patterns

Although the flow of Negroes into nonagricultural employment was low when immigration was at its peak between 1900 and 1910, it did not increase substantially during the 1910s, despite World War I. Negroes were no more important in the growth of the nonagricultural labor force during the 1920s or the 1940s than they were in the 1890s. More Negroes have found urban employment during the most recent decade, just as immigration has been revived on a fairly large scale. In contrast to the irregular pattern shown by Negroes, the employment of white women in the nonagricultural sector has shown a generally upward pattern. Their share of the net increment increased in six of seven decades since 1890. On the other hand, the contribution of white men to the growth of the nonagricultural sector has tended to decrease. Prior to 1920 they provided about 70 percent of each decade's growth; their share declined to less than 40 percent between 1950 and i960. Of the two major divisions of nonfarming occupations—white collar, and manual and service—the former grew much faster over the fifty-year period under review and during every decade save one, the 1930s. In 1910 there were fewer than 8 million manual and service workers. B y i960 the white collar group had increased nearly fourfold, and accounted for 43 percent of total employment, as compared to 21 percent in 1910. Manual and service employment, on the other hand, grew in each decade at almost the same pace as the total work force. As a result, it has consistently accounted for roughly half of the total. W H I T E COLLAR SECTOR

Negroes have never been a really significant factor in white collar employment. In 1910 they accounted for less than 2 percent of all white collar workers. They have slowly increased their share of each decade's increment and contributed almost 5 percent of the growth of white collar employment during the 1940s and 8 percent during the 1950s. They have slowly increased their share of the total

Minorities and Changing Employment Patterns

21

in white collar employment from less than 2 percent between 1910 and 1930 to nearly 4 percent in i960. In general, white collar work has been shared by white men and women. White men have constituted and continue to constitute the majority in this sector, but a majority that has been shrinking. In the 1910s, 1940s, and 1950s white women made a slightly greater contribution than white men to the growth of the field. Only in the 1920s was there a sharp disparity. In that decade white women accounted for only one third of the net increment, as against nearly two thirds for white men. While white women increased their share of total white collar employment from 24 percent in 1910 to 41 percent in i960, white men still have a majority of these jobs, 56 percent.

MANUAL AND SERVICE SECTOR

Changes in the manual and service sector stand in sharp contrast to those in the white collar sector on at least two counts. First, Negroes have played a more important part in supplying the manpower for this field. Second, instead of fairly stable trends, the recruitment patterns have varied greatly from decade to decade. There was some similarity during the two war decades, when the share of both white and Negro women in the growth of this sector was lowest and white men accounted for most of the additions. During the 1910s, in fact, the number of both white and Negro women in manual and service work declined as the field grew. Although much has been made of the impact of the demands of World War II and its aftermath on the employment of women, they accounted for less of the growth of manual and service work in the 1940s than in other decades. During the 1920s women of both races and Negro men as well made significant contributions to the growth of manual and service employment. The most significant break with past patterns came in the 1950s, when Negroes accounted for a full third of the growth of the sector, white women for well over a third, and white men for less than a third.

22

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

Because of the relatively slow growth of the manual and service sector, however, the impact of the changes in the relative importance of the groups within the field was negligible. Negroes slowly increased their share of the total employment in this field from 12 percent in 1910 to 15 percent in i960. White women increased their share from 19 to 22 percent. The proportion of white men in this field declined from 68 percent in 1910 to 63 percent in i960. OCCUPATIONAL FIELDS IN T H E W H I T E COLLAR SECTOR

The clerical and sales field has been the most important growth area during the past half century. It has accounted for more than one third of the net increase in the working population and has doubled its proportion of the total labor force from 10 to 21 percent. The professional work force has grown at approximately the same rate, and indeed at a faster rate during the 1950s. It has accounted for one fifth of the net increase in the total labor force and has more than doubled its proportion of the total, from over 4 to over 11 percent. The proprietary and managerial group has increased much more slowly. While both the professional and the clerical and sales groups have more than quadrupled their numbers, the managerial group has increased less than threefold. The managerial group, which was significantly larger than the professional group in 1910, was the smaller of the two in i960. Negroes have had and continue to have a slightly larger representation in the professional group than among the other two components of white collar employment. They comprised, however, only 4 percent of the total in 1910 and again in i960. Their share of the net growth fluctuated slightly over the years between 3 and 6 percent. A small break-through was achieved in the 1950s, when both Negro men and women accounted for a substantial increase in their share of the net growth over their previous contributions. In recent decades white women have had a smaller share in the growth of the professional labor force than earlier. They accounted for half or more of its growth prior to the Great Depression but less

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

23

than a third since. Their share in the total field increased through 1930 and then decreased, until in i960 they represented little more than one third of the total. White men have been the primary source for the increased manpower in this field, accounting for one third of the increment in the 1910s, one half in the 1920s, and more than three fifths in the last two decades. Negroes have obtained relatively fewer new jobs in the managerial sector than in any other field. During the last two decades there has been some increase in the number of Negroes in proprietary and managerial positions, but it continues to be small. White women, on the other hand, have had a significant role in the growth of the managerial and proprietary occupations. Even in 1910 they comprised 5 percent of the total in the group. They accounted for approximately 10 percent of the increase in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1950s but for twice that proportion during the 1940s. Still, white men have been and continue to be the overwhelming source of managerial and proprietary manpower. They supplied 85 percent or more of the net growth during three decades and nearly 80 percent between 1940 and 1950. Thus, although the preponderance of white men in this sector was slightly reduced, they still account for 5 out of every 6 proprietors, managers, and officials. Negroes were formerly more poorly represented in clerical and sales work than in any other fields of employment. In 1910, for instance, they accounted for only 1 percent of all clerks and sales people. Until 1940, moreover, they played almost no part in the growth of these fields. They accounted for about 1 percent of the growth between 1910 and 1930 and less than 5 percent between 1930 and 1950. They first made a significant contribution during the last decade, accounting for over 10 percent of the net increase. Still, by i960 they represented only 4 percent of the workers in this field, which is a relatively insignificant proportion. White women have provided the major share of the manpower for the growth of the clerical and sales work force. In 1910 they accounted for only 28 percent of the workers in this field. During four of the five succeeding decades they provided approximately 60 to 70 percent of the net additions. The 1920s, when they provided

24

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

only 39 percent of the net growth, was the exception. Their heavy employment in clerical and sales work resulted in their accounting for more than one half of all in the field by 1950 and nearly three out of five by i960. With the exception again of the 1920s, white men have contributed a smaller proportion to each successive decade's growth. Consequently, their relative importance in this field declined from 71 percent in 1910 to 39 percent in i960. OCCUPATIONAL FIELDS IN T H E M A N U A L AND SERVICE SECTOR

As noted earlier, the "blue collar" (manual and service) sector increased at a considerably slower rate than the white collar sector between 1910 and i960. Within the blue collar sector, the number of workers in service occupations increased at a faster rate than the number in manual occupations. The different occupational groups can be ranked from the fastest to the most slowly growing as follows: service workers, except those in private households; operatives, or semiskilled workers; craftsmen, or skilled workers, and foremen; private household servants; and nonfarm laborers. The increase of the service fields reflected an increase in the number of domestic, or private, household servants in three out of five decades, and in the number of other service workers in every decade. Only during the wartime decades, the 1910s and 1940s, did the number in domestic service decline. Among the manual occupations, the number of semiskilled workers and operatives increased in every decade and almost doubled between 1910 and i960. The increase between 1950 and i960 was moderate, however. Over the half century the number of skilled workers and craftsmen increased at almost the same rate as the number of semiskilled. Only during the 1930s did the number of skilled workers in the labor force decline. In contrast to the long-run growth of every other blue collar field, the number of laborers showed a slight net decline between 1910 and i960. Declines in two decades overcame increases in three. During the 1930s their number in the labor force declined, and during the

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

25

1940s the number of employed laborers increased, but the total number in the labor force declined. The part played by various population groups in the service sector changed significantly from time to time. The number of male servants, both white and Negro, increased between 1910 and 1920, although the total field declined. White men made quite large contributions to the growth of the field during the 1930s, while the proportion of the additional servants accounted for by women, particularly Negro women, declined. The net result was that both white and Negro males became much more important as servants between 1910 and 1940, while the importance of both white and Negro women in the area decreased. Between 1940 and i960, however, the trend was reversed. Among both household and nonhousehold service workers men of both races decreased in relative importance, as the contribution of women of both races increased. In i960 the number and relative importance of male household servants was almost insignificant. Although practically all craftsmen and foremen have long been drawn from among white men, this began to change slightly during the 1940s. The number of women in this field increased steadily between 1930 and i960, but they still account for no more than about 2 to 3 percent of the total. Slightly more significant changes in this field were sustained by Negro men. After accounting for 3 or 4 percent of the net increase in the number of skilled workers and foremen between 1910 and 1940, they increased their share of the net growth to 6 percent in the 1940s and to 11 percent in the 1950s. Nevertheless, white men continue to account for 95 percent of all craftsmen and foremen. In the growth of the semiskilled group Negroes made a steadily increasing contribution, except during the 1930s, from 10 percent in the 1910s to 18 percent in the 1940s. A major change occurred in the 1950s, as the number of whites actually decreased. Negroes not only replaced those who had left but accounted for the entire increase in the field. As a result, Negroes increased their share in the total semiskilled work force from nearly 5 percent in 1910 to nearly 12

26

Minorities and Changing Employment

Patterns

percent in i960. This increase reflected mainly an increase in the number of Negro men. White men comprised 58 percent of all semiskilled workers in 1910 but contributed 86 percent of the growth in the 1910s and 73 percent in the 1920s. Thus, they increased their share of the total. Since 1930, however, they contributed less to the growth of the group than they had in the past. After 1950 the number of white males employed as operatives decreased, and in i960 they constituted 66 percent of the total group. White women, on the other hand, decreased in relative importance in the semiskilled work force between 1910 and 1940 from 38 percent to 24 percent, where they have remained. During three of the four decades in which the number of nonfarm laborers increased, Negro men provided two out of three of the people added to the group. This was true in the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s. During the World War I decade they supplied only 35 percent of the net growth, but this represented a substantial increase over the 15 percent of the total they supplied in 1910. Contemporary accounts suggest that most of this increase occurred after immigration was temporarily cut off by the war. It may be that Negro men supplied nearly two thirds of the growth in unskilled employment during the latter part of that decade, too. During the 1930s, as reported earlier, the total field and the number of Negro men in it declined. The importance of white men in the growth of unskilled work has declined greatly. They provided almost half the net growth in the field in the 1910s, and there were nearly as many white as Negro men in the 1920-30 increment. Since 1940, however, white men have supplied only 25 to 30 percent of the net growth of unskilled employment. They still predominate in the total, but by a smaller margin than formerly. In 1910 white men comprised 83 percent and Negro men 15 percent of all nonfarm laborers. B y i960 their share in the total had shifted to 71 and 27 percent, respectively. The role of women, white or Negro, in unskilled work has never been substantial, but this conceals rather large changes in developments from decade to decade. Between 1910 and 1920 they provided one out of six of those added to the total. In the next decade the field

Minorities and, Changing Employment Patterns

27

grew, but their number declined. Their decline continued in the 1930s, as the field itself declined. As unskilled employment grew in the 1940s and 1950s, women supplied 8 and then 4 percent of the net growth. In the 1940s Negro women were more important in the growth of this field than white women. In the last decade, however, there was a decline in the number of Negro women in the field, which was more than made up for by the addition of white women. SUMMARY

Negro men had made their break-through into nonfarm employment much earlier than the period under survey here, providing 9 to 10 percent of the total at least since 1890. Their importance in the service field also predates the period under study and has continued as the field has grown in this century. Since 1950, however, Negro men have not participated in the growth of service employment. Negro men supplied a large share of the new manpower for unskilled work during World War I, but they had provided relatively high proportions of the new laborers during earlier periods. The World War I decade may be more significant as the break-through period into semiskilled work, for Negroes provided 1 o percent of that field's growth between 1910 and 1920, as compared to less than 5 percent of the total in 1910. There were no new break-throughs for Negroes in the 1920s. The 1930s produced certain changes, although whether the main development, a retardation of the flow of teen-age Negroes into unskilled work, represents a positive or negative result is open to question. There were many changes in the 1940s, but mainly patterns that had occurred in earlier periods were re-established or accelerated. Negroes represented nearly one fifth of the growth in the operative occupations, but they had previously accounted for 10 percent or more of the increase in semiskilled workers in the 1910s and 1920s. The 1950s produced several major changes. The employment of operatives increased slowly, and Negroes not only accounted for all of the increase but also replaced many whites. There appeared the

28

Minorities and Changing Employment Patterns

first signs of significant break-through into the ranks of craftsmen and foremen and into clerical and sales work, as Negroes supplied over io percent of the growth in these two major fields. Negroes have never supplied more than a small proportion of professional and related workers nor a significant proportion of nonfarm managers and proprietors. A major break-through into these fields has not yet occurred. Negro men may have made a small break-through into the professional and related occupations, and Negro women into the managerial and proprietary field, primarily in small service establishments. White women have been a more important source of added nonfarm manpower in recent decades than formerly, although there is no simple over-all trend. Their importance in the growth of white collar employment has not varied greatly, except in the 1920s. In recent decades, however, they have been less important in the growth of the clerical and sales field than formerly. Also, trends in the individual white collar fields have not been as stable as in the sector as a whole. White women have shown no consistent trend in terms of their contribution to the manual and service sector as a whole nor to any of its major occupational groups. There have been no significant large scale break-throughs for white women, even though their relative importance as a source of added manpower for particular fields has varied greatly from decade to decade.

CHAPTER III

Minority Manpower and the Growth and Decline of Occupational Fields The description in Chapter II of the relative roles played by different population groups in the growth of the several occupational fields sets the stage for the several questions that are examined in this chapter. When an occupational field grows, does it draw on the same kinds of workers as those on which it has previously relied? Or do growing fields shift toward or away from minority groups as a source of their added manpower? W e have noted that many have believed that occupational fields continue to use the same kinds of workers. The data considered so far casts serious doubt on this hypothesis, but we will examine it more thoroughly here. These questions suggest another: Are increases in the numbers of minority workers in various fields due mainly to the growth of the fields, each group sharing proportionately in the growth, or do the increases reflect mainly shifts in the relative importance of the groups in the field? W e will find that as various occupational fields grow, they tend to shift considerably their reliance on different population groups. Therefore, changes in the number of a minority group in a field are primarily the result of shifts in their relative importance in the inflow of manpower into the field, rather than a simple reflection of the growth of the field in which each group shares proportionately. Whether the shifts in the relative importance of the various groups are systematically related to the growth of the field will be examined later. This will be done from two points of view: the relative importance of a group in the net decennial growth of a field, and the growth rates of the different population groups within a field.

3°

Growth

and Decline

of Occupational

Fields

THE STABILITY OF MINORITY GROUP PATTERNS WITHIN OCCUPATIONAL

FIELDS

Examination of Tables V I and V I I indicated that the relative importance of a group in the growth of a particular field varies greatly from decade to decade. This was shown by the disparities among the growth rates of the various groups within the fields. It was also shown by the disparities between the relative importance of the various groups in the net growth of manpower in a field during a decade and the groups' relative importance in the total manpower in the field at the beginning of the decade. The extent of change in the relative importance of each minority in the growth of a field is shown in detail in Table VIII. These figures can be interpreted in two different ways. In the first, the proportion of the net growth or decline of a field during a decade represented by a group is expressed as an index number that uses as a base the proportion of the total number in the field at the beginning of the decade represented by the group. In the second, the percentage change in the number of a particular group in a field during a decade is expressed as an index number that uses as a base the percentage change in the total number of persons in the field during the decade. Table VIII also present these indexes arbitrarily classified into four groups: close conformity, or cases in which the group's percentage in a decade's increment or decrement varied by no more than one fourth from its percentage at the beginning of the decade; general conformity, in which the index varied by more than one fourth but not more than one half; little conformity, in which the percentage of the increment varied by more than one half from the percentage of the field at the beginning of the decade; and no conformity, in which the group decreased when the total field grew during the decade, or vice versa. Table VIII confirms that the relative importance of a group in a field at one time does not give a good indication of the share it will provide in the subsequent growth of the field. Only in the professions,

Growth

and Decline of Occupational Fields

31

ind then only in the case of white women, was there close conformity in as many as three out of the five decades of growth in a field. In only two other cases—Negro women in professional fields and white women operatives—was there at least general conformity in three out of five decades of growth. Counting instances of both decline and growth, there was close conformity in three decades in the change in the employment of Negro women in the service occupations and at least general conformity in three of the five decades for Negro men among skilled workers and farmers. Considering each population group in each occupational field in each decade separately, there were eight instances in which a population group declined in a field that itself grew during the decade. In 53 out of the 99 cases of growth and 14 out of 36 cases of decline there was little conformity between the proportion of the population group in the total at the beginning of the decade and the proportion in the decade's increment or decrement. In over 60 percent of the cases there was little or no conformity. 1 An important fact to note is that in all three groups there were far more cases among the growing occupations in which the group's proportion of the decade's increment exceeded its proportion at the start. This is not surprising in view of the fact that white men were decreasing in importance as a source of new manpower in the total work force. Nor is it surprising that white women usually tended to increase their relative importance in the growing fields, since they played an increasing part in the over-all growth of the work force. What is surprising is that, despite the fact that Negro men were a declining factor in the total work force, their relative importance in the various fields increased more often than not. In several growing fields, however, in most of the decades a minority group represented a smaller proportion of the decade's increment than it had of the total at the decade's beginning. In the professions the relative importance of Negro men was reduced during the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s. The share of Negro men in the growth of the field of proprietors and managers was less than proportionate in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1950s. White women did not share

2 9 - 3

O o IH

O O « o o v o vo

« A N w O M w~> r o fx-^O t-- NO pò o PÒ H NO Os N •X PO 00 Tt" ^ M N4 M

M N fPi'O l/-» NO PO NN -

a o ro O

N «

Ov 00

« O

8 8Uc " p o ri «*H « r- •H S Jj

2

SS S S g O

S o

S2 JJ

c o u O

•

^ g « o .S3 •-»-(

113

ë

(U

U „ we _ 0 ^S O rt4> m ai rt n fi 0 en b tu b o i * Ph U e n en Z

Vv

r-* t** o o o o o

N

N «

H «

O

g

s a 13 ^ 4> a i 0) u Ote M •O O Cl M u « ^

\0 o ^ r » r^NO

oo o o

r^ V o

IO X n « m f i io -O «

a ^ U s u M O

...

»n

q

o P a S ' S ' u O - ih e m u S - . s s K M0" ' « O

u S O e g s

S >/-> o O 00

N W

N

u

2° E «

B 5

^ • f . S

o

V 0000 O ' j - « m t O l O H M « M M N tN

O.U H H

^

E S

•È

. S «s V

¿s

E

c e •a O g u

2

IH o

"EbSP^ V C

.8 1 - 9 Û. "rt Ü M

w vî

§ 2 1 3 o u

•S.S'

g

u bo io

g n o ! O o 'fi " g s s

.M u £ co c«

o e) , « en t u t u

° 71

2 3 ft-Z 12'

a

.

34

Growth

and Decline of Occupational Fields

proportionately in the increment in the professions after 1930 or among operatives and semiskilled workers during the 1910s, 1920s, and 1950s. GROWTH OF OCCUPATIONAL FIELDS AS A FACTOR IN T H E INCREASE OF MINORITY M A N P O W E R IN

THEM

One way of measuring whether increases in the employment of a minority group are due to the growth of fields or to other factors has been suggested. If a minority group constitutes a relatively stable proportion of a field as it grows, increases in their numbers can be considered to be mainly due to the growth of the field. On the other hand, when there are great differences between the relative importance of a group in a field at the start of a decade and in its subsequent growth, increases in the number of minority manpower in the field reflect mainly changing conditions in the field rather than simply the growth of the field. The figures in Table V I I I are relevant here. T h e y express for each field and decade the actual net growth in the number of Negro men, Negro women, and white women, respectively, as a percent of the "expected" net growth if each group had expanded in proportion to the total growth of the field. In this context, Table V I I I indicates, for instance, that between 1910 and 1920 the number of Negro male professional and related workers increased by only 41 percent as much as would have been expected on the basis of the growth of the field itself. Alternatively, it indicates that as a result of adverse factors working to reduce their employment in this field, the net increase in the number of Negro men was 59 percent less than would have been expected from the growth of the field. On the other hand, the number of Negro male semiskilled workers increased between 1910 and 1920 by 163 percent more than would have been expected on the basis of the growth of the field alone. In this case, factors favorable to the employment of Negro men in the field were more important than the growth of the field alone. Following these examples, one can say that, if growth of the field

Growth

and Decline of Occupational Fields

35

were the only factor, the index would be 100. Whenever the index is between 50 and 200, one can say that the growth of the field was the predominant factor. In all other cases, factors favorable or adverse to the minority group were predominant. Thus, the increased employment of white women in various fields has been most often due to the growth of the fields themselves, and less often the result of changing employment patterns. This has been particularly true of employment in the white collar occupations. The number of Negro men employed in the various fields has been less affected by the growth of the field than by other changes. Shifts toward employment of Negro men were particularly great in nonfarm laboring and semiskilled fields. Likewise, but to a lesser extent, changes in the employment of Negro women were generally less a result of growth of the field than of changes in employment patterns. Increases in the number of Negro women in the clerical and sales field, for instance, were primarily due to other factors than to the growth of the field in four out of five decades. On the other hand, in all five decades the increase in the number of Negro women in professional and related occupations was primarily a reflection of the growth of the field rather than a changed employment ratio.

RELATIONSHIP B E T W E E N GROWTH RATES OF FIELDS AND OF MINORITY

MANPOWER

W e have seen that Negroes have not been represented by a stable proportion of the growth of the various fields; that, in fact, their employment has increased fairly consistently at a rate faster than the average. Are there, then, significant relationships between the growth rates of fields and of the minorities within them? W e noted in Chapter I the frequent assertion that rapid growth in a field helps to create break-through opportunities for minorities. W e noted the alternative suggestion that some fields can grow rapidly only if previously underutilized manpower groups are tapped. As a source of new manpower, Negroes were drawn on most heavily by the manual and service sector, which has been the most slowly growing sector. White women were most important as a source of

36

Growth

and Decline of Occupational

Fields

added manpower in the more rapidly growing white collar sector. There are, however, some important differences within these major sectors. Unskilled labor, which has relied heavily on Negroes, has been the most slowly growing field. Similarly, the operative occupations drew wholly on Negroes for their growth in the 1950s, when their growth was quite limited. On the other hand, the service occupations have been growing relatively fast, and they have always relied heavily on Negroes. White women have become of increasing importance in the growth of the clerical and sales field, although it is not growing as fast as formerly. Conversely, white women have been of diminishing importance in the growth of the professional and related occupations, as the over-all growth rates in these fields have accelerated. T w o ways of more carefully considering the questions raised here suggest themselves. One is to relate the growth rate of the fields to the relative importance of each race-sex group in their net growth. The other is to relate the growth rates of the fields to the growth rates of the different race-sex groups within them. It is unlikely that, in general, a minority group can provide larger proportions of the added manpower in rapidly growing fields than in slowly growing fields. This is because the growth patterns of the majority group define the rapidly growing fields. Rapidly growing fields are those that have rapid increases in the numbers of the majority group in them, and slowly growing fields are those that have relatively small increases in the numbers of the majority group in them. Because the minority is a small proportion of the total labor force by definition, they can usually provide only a small proportion of the added manpower in rapidly growing fields; in slowly growing fields they may often provide a fairly large proportion of the added manpower, simply because so f e w of the majority group enter these fields. In addition, of course, the rapid growth fields have been those associated with more education, higher status and prestige, higher pay, and better working conditions, and, therefore, one would expect minorities to face difficulties in entering them. T h e facts support the logic. In general, Negro men supplied a large proportion of the added manpower in the slowly growing fields and

Growth

and Decline

of Occupational

Fields

37

a small proportion of the added manpower in the rapidly growing fields. White women, who accounted for such a large part of the growth of the over-all labor force, supplied a relatively larger share of the new manpower for the rapidly growing fields than in the slowly growing fields. These relationships prevailed over-all and in every decade except the 1930s. White men, of course, constitute the overwhelming majority of the labor force. Significant shifts in their occupational distribution, particularly in the distribution of new members of the labor force, could have been the predominant factor in determining which fields grew rapidly and which slowly. Nevertheless, the correlation between the growth rate of fields and the relative importance of white men in the growth of these fields has varied from decade to decade. There was no consistent correlation. Similarly, the correlation between the growth rates of fields and the relative importance of Negro women in the manpower added to these fields has varied from decade to decade. Since Negro women are a relatively small proportion of the labor force, it would be expected that they would comprise a larger share of the added manpower in the slowly growing fields than in the rapidly growing fields. However, this pattern did not prevail. GROWTH RATES OF GROUPS WITHIN FIELDS

Can we make a comparison between changes in the employment of the minority and majority groups within different fields? Let us first compare the growth rates of Negro men, as one minority group, and all women, as another, with the growth rates for white men, the majority group. A separate analysis of employment changes among women will also be undertaken, with white women as the majority and Negro women the minority. This should shed some light on the extent to which they are subject to common influences as fields grow or decline, as well as the extent to which one group may have acted as a substitute for another. We find that changes in the number of Negro men in a field are highly correlated with changes in the number of white men in the

38

Growth

and Decline of Occupational

Fields

same field. During the four prosperous decades there was a general tendency for the number of Negro men in the various occupations to increase by an amount more than in proportion to the increase in the number of white men. This relationship did not differ significantly during the four prosperous decades. During the 1930s, however, changes in the number of white men tended to be accompanied by a slightly less than proportionate change in the number of Negro men. During the Depression the manpower surpluses were so great that white men undoubtedly were much more likely than usual to be employed in expanding fields. In declining fields the number of Negro men sometimes declined more rapidly and sometimes less rapidly than the number of white males. In one field—nonfarm managers, proprietors, and officials—the number of Negro men declined as the number of white men increased. The net effect of the roughly proportional declines in declining fields, where Negroes were heavily concentrated, and the less than proportionate increases in expanding fields was that during the 1930s the Negro male labor force declined while the white male labor force increased. This goes far to explain the profoundly pessimistic outlook for the future of the Negro that many held at the time and that was set forth in Myrdal's An American Dilemma, published in 1944 but written largely with the 1930s as background. For each difference of 10 percent of points in the change in the number of white men in a major occupational group during any decade from 1910 to i960, with the exception of the 1930s, there was a difference of 16 percent of points in the change in the number of Negro males in that field. When the number of white men in the field increased, the number of Negro men increased at a faster rate. When the number of white men in a field decreased rapidly, the number of Negro men usually decreased even faster. However, when the number of white men did not change or declined slightly, there was a tendency for the number of Negro men to increase. This has been particularly true since 1940. During this period, therefore, there was a tendency for Negro men to replace white men in fields that changed little in size. There has been no consistent pattern in the relationship between

Growth

and Decline of Occupational Fields

39

percentage changes in the employment of women and of white men. The two patterns were not significantly correlated in the 1910s and 1930s. During the other three decades the relationship between changes in the number of women and of white men differed. Each difference of 10 percentage points in the change in the number of white men was accompanied by a difference of 14 percentage points in the change in the number of women in the 1920s, n percentage points in the 1940s, and of only 5 percentage points in the 1950s. What relationship is there between the changes in the employment of Negro men, on the one hand, and women, on the other, and changes in the employment of white men? By and large, the employment of women did not increase as fast as the employment of white men in the various fields. Although there was no clear-cut pattern, there was a general long-run tendency for white men to substitute for women at the margin as fields grew. The employment trends of Negro men do indicate a clear-cut pattern: their number increased in the various fields at a faster rate than that for white men, except during the 1930s. Negro men generally substituted for white men at the margin as fields grew. In contrast to the consistently high degree of correlation between changes in the number of Negro and white men in the various fields, the employment trends for Negro and white women have become increasingly independent. The degree of correlation between percentage changes in Negro and white female employment in the various occupational fields has declined steadily since the 1920s. In the 1940s the measured relationship was not significant, and there was no relationship in the 1950s. Prior to 1940, the two groups increased or decreased in more or less equal proportion in the various fields. Since 1940 the increases in the number of Negro women have been quite small in comparison to the changes in the number of white women. In other words, there was first a steady decrease in the tendency for Negro women to substitute for white women at the margin and, since 1930, an increasing tendency for white women to substitute for Negro women at the margin. This suggests that, increasingly, different sets of factors have been affecting the growth of the number of Negro and white women in

4-o

Growth

and Decline of Occupational Fields

the various fields. The labor force participation rates of the two groups have changed in divergent ways. There has been a long-run tendency for more middle-aged and older white women to enter the labor force. The proportion of middle-aged Negro women who are in the labor force has increased less rapidly, and the proportions of both older and younger Negro females in the labor force have declined. Employment trends in the various occupational fields have also differed. As the economy has advanced, more white women have been willing to enter the low ranking fields. On the other hand, as the economic position of Negro families has improved and as the Negro family has become more cohesive, Negro women have tended to avoid the lower level occupations. Thus, in recent decades, the number of Negro women in farming, domestic service, and unskilled labor has usually increased less rapidly or decreased more rapidly than the number of white women, or has even declined as the number of white women increased. In the higher level occupations, on the other hand, the number of white women has often advanced moderately as the number of Negro women has grown relatively rapidly from a small base.

CHAPTER IV

The Changing Position of Negro Workers The approach followed so far has been to ask what relationships have existed between the growth rates of occupational fields and changes in the employment of majority and minority groups within them? This chapter undertakes another, perhaps more conventional, way of studying the same phenomena by considering how the growth and changes in the structure of the economy has affected the employment patterns of minority groups, particularly the Negro labor force. How do changes in the occupational patterns of minority groups—and, again, specifically of Negroes—compare with the patterns of the white labor force? Is there more or less equality between the occupational distributions of Negro and white workers now than in the past? In this chapter we will attempt to answer these questions for the half century, 1910 to i960. THE CHANGING OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEGRO AND WHITE WORKERS

In 1910, as Table IX indicates, half of the Negro labor force was engaged in farming, as compared to only 28 percent of the white labor force. As the economy grew and labor resources were increasingly transferred to the nonfarming sector, Negroes made the transition even more rapidly than white workers. As a result, in i960 a great discrepancy no longer prevailed; farming then claimed 7 percent of the white labor force and 11 percent of the Negro labor force. This great transfer is nearing its end, however, for rural areas can no longer continue to supply major amounts of manpower to other sectors. A new discrepancy prevailed in i960, but in the manual and service occupations. The proportion of the white labor force in this sector of work has been remarkably stable since 1910; it has remained at

o . •>o o

S o 'I" bo Ö 00 »A o oo -

^ ri 00

N VO 8

2 mh «

o w

O 00

N

o «¿i ?

VO O « ¿V

< J O pí q §

O Q ?

00

00

o S "

S &H

£

M U Pi W

O - r^, r^Ovvd òvvi

.o

'

N°

2

N "O TÍ" ñ Tj- Ö> Oh 3 U O c r 00 Ov «

o © o

^ fTi 00 -

et o o o

00 Ir*

00 oo H -6 ¿

o •ir

f » o \o

o oo Os r, 00 1-

»n

r.

«

vo o

«d O O O

00 •4- c¿ r-.

H N

c^i r¡ rj- l A NO

M 00

o O o

o vq rñ\Ó oo

te,

p < Ph

o vq i* Ñ

•i- M

W O

T3 S

< G JS o

H ¡

i 13

1 ::

Ph

X •Si 4 -

Oh O S

s

0 1 O tu SS 5 « - a ®\ o* U

¥

O ri

_

o \o

-

2

iris ¡|i| »

5?" I

ß

i. s A S> § 3; S -Si S 1 ""