Rising Skill Levels and Declining Labor Force Status among African American Males

Steadily rising levels of educational attainment typify young African Americans in recent decades. Also typical among this group, particularly among males, is the rising incidence of subpoverty-level earnings and higher nonparticipation in the labor force. This article presents and analyzes data showing that downwardly mobile White workers are increasingly displacing bluecollar Black workers in ways reminiscent of the Great Depression, and that those Blacks who remain employed in blue-collar fields often face reduced compensation and job security. It attributes the severe problems facing Black workers partly to their weaker position relative to Whites to defend themselves from modern-day employer practices and partly to broader economic changes affecting blue-collar workers of both races. BLACK-WHITE EARNINGS INEQUALITY Defenders of the severe earnings inequality that typifies the present U.S. labor market invariably cite the following 1960s-style generalizations to justify the status quo: (a) the meritocracy argument and (b) the employer attitudes argument. The first theory posits that labor market outcomes are solely determined by the abilities of workers and potential workers. Thus, the better-qualified applicant gets the job; the more productive employee receives higher compensation than the less productive one; and advancement opportunities accrue to the most highly qualified workers. Additionally, because ability determines outcomes in a meritocracy, acquiring more education and skills are pragmatic strategies for those who desire to compete successfully in the labor market. There is a large and indisputable element of truth to the meritocracy argument. However, critics point out that this hypothesis ignores important realities about the labor process in the United States. Particularly when simplistic meritocracy arguments are put forth to justify the lower earnings, higher unemployment rates, and lower labor force participation rates of African Americans as opposed to White Americans, critics rightly claim that discrimination skews labor market outcomes in ways that are disadvantageous to Black workers. Though employment discrimination takes many forms, the second argument captures the crux of the discriminatory processes historically operant in the U.S. labor market in its presumption that labor market opportunities are shaped by employer attitudes. Thus, an employer who believes that Blacks generally are less reliable workers than Whites will prefer to hire Whites when applicants appear to be equal in every respect other than race. Such an employer may hire Black workers if (a) a suitable supply of White applicants is unavailable or (b) Blacks can be hired at lower wages than similarly qualified Whites. Given such discriminatory employer attitudes, African Americans tend to suffer from restricted job access and lower wages more often than similarly qualified White workers. These two generalizations are not mutually exclusive. Employer attitudes must be altered before the meritocracy arguments put forth in the first generalization can be accepted as valid. Alternately, variations of the second generalization implicate Whites who refuse to work side by side with Blacks, or White consumers who refuse to shop in environs where Black employees are numerous, as further causes of discriminatory labor market outcomes. According to both variants, however, the culprit responsible for maintaining Black disadvantage in the labor market is the same: White attitudes. Progressive labor market policies popularized in the 1960s were an amalgam of the generalities noted above. Black-White labor market inequalities, it was then assumed, would best be fought by (a) upgrading education and skill levels, particularly among young African Americans; and (b) putting legal pressure on employers to abandon their discriminatory attitudes. Despite the failure of these strategies to ameliorate these disparities, 1960s-era generalizations about employee productivity and employer attitudes still provide important insights into the causes of earnings differentials. …