uepanmenl of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number

53

Distribution of

Employment Growth

in 10 Georgia

Counties:

A Case Study

James D. Schaub

Victor J. Oliveira
Additional copies of this report...

May be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Ask for the report by name. Write

to the above address for price information or call the GPO order desk (202)

783-3238, and charge your purchase to your VISA, MasterCard, Choice, or

GPO deposit account.

Microfiche copies ($5.95 each) can be purchased from the National

Technical Information Service, Identification Section, 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Ask for the report by title. Enclose check or

money order, payable to NTIS. Or call (703) 487-4780.
Distribution of Employment Growth in 10 Georgia Counties: A Case

Study, by James D. Schaub and Victor J. Oliveira. Agriculture and Rural

Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Rural Development Research Report No. 53.

Abstract

Rapid economic grov^th in a 10-county rural area in south Georgia during

1976-81 favored employment of whites, men, and inmigrants. They earned

higher average weekly salaries than blacks, women, and long-term residents.

This study of growth in a mixed manufacturing- and agricultural-based

economy flows from a research project on the impacts of economic expansion in nonmetro economies with different industrial bases. The Georgia

area's job growth was greatest in the trades and services sectors. Few

businesses used public sector funds to start or expand their operations.

Government employed 25 percent of the area's wage and salary workers.

Keywords: Blacks, inmigrants, rural employment growth, rural labor force,

women, youth.

Acknowledgments

This study benefited greatly because of the generous manner in which Stan

Daberkow and Donald Larson shared their experiences from the Economic

Development Division's first study of the distributional effects of employment growth in a nine-county area in Kentucky.

Douglas Kleweno and Lawrence S. Williams helped develop sample and

survey materials. Shirley Zonner assisted in data preparation. Robert

Coltrane and Thomas Carhn supervised the study. Gratitude is extended to

the enumerators for their data collection efforts. Joyce Su prepared the

variance program used in statistical hypothesis testing. Linda A. Rail typed

the report.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 November 1985
Contents

Page

Glossary iii

Summary , vi

Introduction 1

Background 1

Study Area 3

Survey Design 3

Study Area's Economy and People 6

Industrial Structure 6

Area Residents 8

Employment Growth . 11

Sources of New Jobs 11

Numbers and Types of Jobs 12

The Influence of Multiestablishment Firms 16

Employed Workers 17

Long-term Residents and Inmigrants 18

Blacks and Whites 20

Men and Women 22

Youth and Older Workers . 23

Recent Entrants 25

Roles of Government in Employment Growth 26

Government as an Employer 27

Government as a Source of Capital. 27

Employment Services and Training —.... 29

Potential Labor Force 31

Gonclusions 33

References ^ .......... 34

At Appendix A: Survey Design and Procedures 36

Appendix B: Calculation of Variance Statistics 39
Glossary

statistical testing and survey design:

Significant difference—

A comparison between two variables was

statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level when the observed difference was

greater than twice the standard error of the difference. The variables tested were in the form

of totals, ratios, percentages, and dollar values.

Survey sample designList frame. The list frame sample was comprised of a list of private sector establishments and government units located in the

10-county area. A subsample of employees

was drawn from the surveyed list frame

establishments which subsequently became

the list frame sample of households.

Area frame. The area frame consisted of a

two-stage stratified cluster sample, where

the first stage involved sampling segments

and the second stage involved sampling

establishments and households. The area

frame provided a sample of establishments

and households not identified by the list

frame. The area frame and list frame

together represented the total population of

establishments and households.

Primary sampling unit. Primary sampling

units (PSU's) are associated with the frame

sample. For the list frame, establishments

were the PSU's; for the area frame, land

segments of varying size were the PSU's.

PSU's serve as the base for deriving

variances, as opposed to observations, in a

complex survey design.

Employers, private and public sectors, and related

terms:

Establishments—

An establishment is an economic unit, generally

located at a single location, where business is

conducted or where services or industrial

operations are performed. A firm may consist

of one or more such units.

Type of establishment—

Goods-producing. Includes establishments

in the private sector engaged in construction, mining, and manufacturing activities.

Services-producing. Includes establishments in the private sector engaged in

wholesale and retail trade; TCPU (transportation, communications, and public

utilities); FIRE (finance, insurance, and real

estate); and all other services, including

hotels, personal, business, amusement,

health, legal, education, and social services.

Government. Includes civilian Federal,

State, county, city, or town governmental

units. A unit of government or a nonprofit

organization funded primarily by Federal,

State, or local government which has sufficient management over its own affairs or

taxing authority to distinguish it from the

administrative structure of other governmental units. Military units were excluded

from the survey.

Size of establishmentSmall. Those units that employed fewer

than 20 paid workers in December 1981.

Large. Those units that employed 20 or

more paid workers in December 1981.

No paid employees. Those establishments

totally operated by self-employed owners or

partners in December 1981 and referred to

as establishments with no paid employees.

Some of these establishments had paid

employees in 1976.

Establishment wage levels—

Mean-wage establishments. The average

weekly wages paid full-time workers in the

mean-wage establishments ranged from
$202 to $246 in December 1981. The

authors calculated this wage by adding and

subtracting 10 percent of the mean weekly

wage of $224 paid by all estabhshments.

Low-wage establishments. The average

weekly wage paid full-time workers was

less than $202 in December 1981.

High-wage establishments. The average

weekly wage paid full-time workers was

greater than $246 in December 1981.

Structure or age of establishment—

Multiestablishments. Private sector

establishments with two or more plants,

branch offices, or outlets for business. Data

presented under multiestablishments represent only information collected from the

unit surveyed.

New establishments. Establishments which

began operation in the 10-county area after

1976.

Ongoing establishments. Establishments

which began operation in the 10-county

area during or before 1976.

Establishment employment change, 1976-81—

Growth. Establishments that increased

employment by one or more persons between 1976 and 1981.

No-growth. Represents establishments

where employment levels either did not

change or declined between 1976 and 1981.

Population and employee-related terms:

Households—

A group of persons, not necessarily related by

blood or marriage, whose usual place of

residence is in a house, an apartment, a group

of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate

living quarters.

Annual household income. AH income

received during the year by household

members except income received from the

sale of land, buildings, stock, or other

capital assets.

Household member. Any person whose

usual place of residence is in the housing

unit that was surveyed. (A housing unit is a

house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or

a single room occupied as separate living

quarters.)

Adult—

Any person who was 16 years of age or older

in January 1982.

Labor forceIncludes only the adult population who were

employed or unemployed.

Employed. Employed persons who were

working for wages or salaries or who were

self-employed in their own businesses or

professions or on their own farms.

Unemployed. Unemployed persons who

were looking for work or on layoffs waiting

to be called back to a job.

Employment rate. The proportion of the

adult population that was employed.

Unemployment rate. The proportion of the

labor force that was unemployed.

Residency statusLong-term residents. Residents who lived

in the 10-county area continuously between

December 31, 1966, and January 1982.

Early inmigrants. Residents who moved to

the 10-county area between January 1, 1967,

and December 31, 1976.

Recent inmigrants. Residents who moved

to the 10-county area between January 1,

1977, and January 1982.

IV
Return inmigrants. Residents who had

moved from the 10-county area, Hved outside the area for some time, and then

moved back to the area after January 1,

1967.

New inmigrants. Residents who moved to

the study area between January 1, 1967,

and January 1982, and who had not

previously hved in the area.

Employment status—

Full-time. Wage and salary workers who

worked 30 or more hours per week.

Part-time. Wage and salary workers who

worked less than 30 hours per week.

Recent entrants to the labor force. Persons

who were not in the labor force in 1976

and who were employed 1 or more weeks

in 1981.

Experienced workers. Persons who were

employed 1 or more weeks in both 1976

and 1981.

Self-employed. Persons who worked for

profit or fees in their own businesses or

professions or on their own farms.

Occupational groupsExecutive. Includes managerial, administrative, engineering, scientific,

teaching, and related occupations, including

creative artists.

Technical. Includes technicians, clerical,

sales, service, farming, forestry, fishing, and

hunting occupations, and persons living in

the area who were in the military.

Production. Includes production workers in

manufacturing, construction, extractive,

transport, and related occupations.

Worker ages—

Youth. Persons 16-24 years of age in

January 1982.

Prime-age workers. Persons 25-49 years of

age in January 1982.

Older workers. Persons 50 years of age and

older in January 1982.

Link-wage worker—

Persons who were sampled from the list

frame establishments surveyed and who

were working for wages and salaries 1 or

more weeks in 1981. Establishment data

linked to the worker are for the unit in

which the worker worked the most days in

1981.

RaceWas self-determined by respondents. Whites

and blacks were the racial groups of

statistical significance in the 10 Georgia

counties. Although included in the overall

population, such groups as Hispanics,

Asians, and American Indians made up less

than 0.5 percent of the population, a

statistically insignificant proportion.
Summary

Rapid employment growth during 1976-81, in a 10-county area in south

Georgia, favored whites, men, and inmigrants because they were more

hkely to be employed and to receive higher average weekly earnings than

blacks, women, and long-term residents. Youth and others with limited

work experience found jobs but frequently worked part-time and in lowwage occupations.

This study is the second of three in a series which examines the impacts of

rural economic growth. The study identifies sources of jobs, who gets the

jobs, and how government contributes to economic growth. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service selected south

Georgia to represent fast-growing nonmetro areas which had a racially

mixed population and a mixed manufacturing- and agricultural-based

economy.

Nearly 2,000 new establishments began operation and 1,440 existing firms

increased their work forces, creating a net increase of 16,000 new jobs.

Sixty-five percent of these net new jobs were in new establishments. These

enterprises were typically small trade or service businesses. Expanding

establishments paid higher average weekly wages and supplied more executive and professional jobs than new establishments.

Government, a high-wage sector, employed 25 percent of all wage and

salary workers. As the economy grew in the 1970's, few estabhshments

depended on public sector funding; most businesses relied on retained earnings, stock sales, and commercial loans. Government indirectly assisted

economic growth by improving the infrastructure which supported commerce and attracted new employers.

The findings in this study substantially match the results from the first

report in the series, which covered nine nonmetro counties in south-central

Kentucky. One major difference showed that recent inmigrants to Georgia

received higher wages than long-term residents. In Kentucky, long-term

residents earned the same as recent inmigrants. Also, the women's

unemployment rate compared with men's was higher in Georgia than in

Kentucky. These differences may be traced to stages of economic development, industrial structure, and the business cycle at the time of the survey.

The third study will focus on a nonmetro region that straddles the

Missouri-Arkansas border.
Distribution of Employment Growth

in 10 Georgia Counties

A Case Study

James D. Schaub and

Victor J. Oliveira*

Introduction

New and expanding businesses and an increase in

government jobs significantly improved employment in south Georgia during 1976-81. Whites,

men, and inmigrants got most of the highest paying

jobs. Blacks, v^omen, and long-term residents participated less in the economic expansion.

Many social scientists and government officials

consider economic development in the form of

population and employment growth to be a

desirable course for improving the well-being of

rural residents f3, 4, 8, 11, 23}.^ After decades of

lagging behind metro areas, nonmetro communities

in the early 1970's surpassed metro areas in population and employment growth rates (2). Employment

in nonmetro America was 30.3 million in 1982

compared with 26 million in 1973. Yet, in 1982,

there were also 3.4 million nonmetro persons

unemployed and 21 million adults outside the labor

force, and the growth advantage nonmetro places

had in the 1970's had diminished. National-level

nonmetro data show that blacks, youth, and until

recently, women have higher than average

unemployment rates. Clearly, economic growth of

the 1970's did not improve the employment status

of all nonmetro residents.

This study's primary goals are to identify the

employment contributions associated with different

types of estabhshments; to measure the impacts of

^Italicized numbers in parentheses cite sources in the

References section.

*The authors are economists with the Agriculture and Rural

Economics Division (formerly the Economic Development Division, EDD), Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture.

economic growth on population subgroups, including blacks, youth, and women; and to analyze

the roles of government in the economic growth

process, all within the context of a rural economy

which experienced above-average economic growth

in the 1970's.

Background

Rural economic growth is diverse and uneven. Aggregate data reflect the net experience of economically growing communities, economically stable

communities, and economically declining communities. Such data cannot answer questions about

the distributive impacts of economic changes except in very broad terms. Microeconomic data on

distributional effects of economic development are

needed to properly formulate and evaluate alternative rural development strategies. Surveys of

rural households, private sector establishments, and

governmental units are particularly useful because

they can help us understand the effects of

economic development on the rural population.

These data need to relate directly the characteristics of employees to the industries in which they

work. The data of this study meet these criteria.

Rural development policy focuses primarily on increasing employment opportunities and generating

greater income. The Rural Development Act of 1972

and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 contain explicit goals for creating jobs and increasing

incomes by providing subsidized capital and training for rural people. The rationale for this approach

to rural development has been that economic

growth benefits all residents, even low-income

workers, new labor force entrants, and other disad-
Schaub/OIiveira

vantaged labor force participants, yet there has

been very little research undertaken to test this rationale. This study attempts such a test.

An assumption underlying government expenditures for economic development is that private sector funds would not be sufficient to stimulate industrial development. This study will partially

assess the role of government as a source of funds

for economic growth.

In 1979, the Economic Development Division (EDD)

began a series of three studies of how the benefits

of economic development are distributed in

nonmetro America. The plan's goal was to identify

a number of small geographic areas which typified

general nonmetro economic conditions. Nonmetro

communities are diverse in industrial base (including the relative importance of agriculture),

racial/ethnic and other demographic characteristics

of the population, and isolation from metropolitan

areas. One community cannot represent the total

nonmetro United States, but it can typify substantial segments. The relationships generated in each

of the EDD studies are expected to hold for other

nonmetro communities with similar attributes. EDD

analysts designed the studies to examine the

distribution of jobs among long-term residents, inmigrants, and recent labor force entrants. Each

study examined other population groups, depending

on the local population composition. The same

survey and sampling procedures were used in each

study in order to compare findings.

The first study, conducted in 1979 and 1980 in a

nine-county area of south-central Kentucky, examined a formerly persistently low-income region

of rapid outmigration which recently experienced

substantial growth in a variety of manufacturing industries and in mining (9J. Long-term residents,

women, and youth were of special interest in this

study. The other study in the series used a

10-county area straddling the Missouri-Arkansas

border to address distributional issues in economies

whose growth is based on retirement and recreation income. The data, collected in 1984, especially

concentrated on elderly residents.

This study covers a 10-county area of the Southern

Coastal Plains of Georgia which experienced high

rates of economic growth in the 1970's. The site

differed significantly from the others because unlike

the other areas, it contained a substantial black

population and continues to be an important commercial agricultural area. These characteristics permit an examination of the distribution of benefits

(and losses) from economic development in a racially mixed population in an area with a strong

agricultural sector.

The first objective, identifying employment contributions, is very basic because it is important to

know the source of jobs. We lack information about

the characteristics of establishments creating jobs in

rural areas. The importance of establishment age,

size, industry, wage levels, and ownership structure

in generating employment opportunities has been a

matter of speculation and debate fl, 5, 9, 25). Good

information on this issue is essential for formulating rural development strategies and

allocating financial resources. Individual citizens

will also benefit from this information. Entrepreneurs will be able to identify new business

opportunities, and job seekers will benefit from

knowing which industries are expanding.

The second objective, measuring impacts of

economic growth on subgroups, adds to limited information about the way the benefits of economic

growth are distributed among rural people. Certain

groups historically have been disadvantaged in opportunities and economic outcomes {12, 24, 26],

Other groups have faced serious disruptions from

changing industrial structures and population

movements f6, 17, 20, 22, 24]. The effectiveness of

rural development programs, purporting to aid the

low-income and disadvantaged through general

economic growth, has not been well established [3,

4, 8, 11], We have limited knowledge about how

blacks, women, youth, and the elderly share in the

benefits and losses resulting from growth. Nor do

we know the extent to which long-term residents

and inmigrants compete for jobs.

The third objective, analyzing the roles of government in the economic growth process, is included

because government makes an important contribution to rural job creation. Some of government's

roles are exclusively the sphere of the public sector

(defense) while other public sector functions (educa-
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

tion, job placement services] overlap or at least supplement functions (loans, health care) performed in

the private sector. To formulate effective policies

for rural development, government officials need to

know which public sector activities bring about

economic growth and how these activities affect the

distribution of the jobs. Job-training programs and

placement services should help disadvantaged and

unemployed people get jobs. Many people believe

government involvement in capital markets is

essential for economic development, but there is little evidence to assess rural employers* dependence

on publicly aided capital f9, 16]. The Federal, State,

and local spending decisions for the broad goals of

rural development could be improved with better

understanding of which programs have had the

greatest impacts.

Before reporting the analytical results of the survey,

some background information on the study site,

sui/ey procedures, and the study area's economy

and population will be presented. The analysis of

the results of rural development first considers the

sources and distribution of jobs and the contributions of different types of establishments to job

growth. Next, the employment outcomes for various

population groups are discussed, followed by the

activities of government relating to employment

and a comparison of the major findings from the

Georgia and Kentucky studies.

Study Area

The study site was the following 10 south Georgia

counties: Berrien, Brooks, Colquitt, Cook, Echols,

Grady, Lanier, Lowndes, Thomas, and Tift (fig. 1).

Valdosta, with a 1980 population of 36,650, was the

only city in the study site with a population over

20,000. The nearest metropolitan areas, Albany,

Georgia, and Tallahassee, Florida, are about 30

miles away.

To achieve this study's goals, analysts set four

criteria for selecting the study site from several

possible sites: the area selected must have experienced employment and population growth rates

between 1970 and 1977 above the national

nonmetro average rate; at least 15 percent of the

area's population must have been minorities; the

area's economic base must have included a significant commercial agricultural sector; and the area

must have constituted a reasonably self-contained

labor market as evidenced by low commuting rates

into and out of the area. The first three criteria

were straightforward translations of the study's objectives and target populations. The fourth criterion

was required as part of the sampling design to insure the feasibility of the linking process between

employing establishments and employees and their

households. Linking establishment and employee

responses was a unique aspect of the three studies.

The efficiency of the sample was enhanced because

most of the people who worked in the study area

also lived there.

The Georgia study site best met all four selection

criteria. Employment increased 16.4 percent between 1970 and 1977 compared with 15.2 percent

for all nonmetro areas.^ The study site population

grew 10.8 percent during this period compared

with 9.3 percent for all nonmetro counties. Blacks

constituted 31 percent of the area's 1970 population. The 1978 Census of Agriculture reported 5,368

farms in the 10 counties, and 40 percent of these

farms reported annual sales of farm products of

$20,000 or more. Special tabulations of 1970 Census

data show in- and out-commuting rates at less than

10 percent. Conversations with employers and local

officials suggested that commuting rates were

below 10 percent in 1981.

Survey Design

A major objective of the study was to identify new

and existing sources of employment and to learn

how these job opportunities were distributed among

population subgroups. This required a survey

design which would collect data from both

establishments and households and would directly

link employees and their households with their

^When the study site was selected in 1980, the most recent

available county employment and population data were 1977

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data. Later BEA data

showed that between 1976 and 1981 total employment in the

area increased 11.5 percent, while population increased 4.6 percent compared with national nonmetro employment and population growth of 8.8 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively.
Schaub/Oliveira

Figure 1

The 10-County Georgia Study Site
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

employers. To account for all workers and all

households in the area, the sample included small

businesses with no paid employees and households

with no workers. We used two questionnaires and

two surveys to collect data, one for establishments

and one for households. The questionnaires were

adaptable to the varying circumstances of

establishments and households.^

Sampling establishments required a complete list of

employers and businesses in the 10-county site.'* We

compiled the list from data supplied by the Employment Security Agency of the Georgia Department of

Labor, the Georgia Department of Industry and

Trade, telephone books, and various trade and

association directories. This list was stratified by industry and number of employees, and researchers

randomly selected a fraction of the employers in

each stratum for interviews. Enumerators visited

the selected establishments in December 1981. The

establishment questionnaire elicited data on the

date the responding private establishment or

government unit began operation in the 10-county

area; legal organization; primary product produced

or service provided; current and 1976 employment,

payrolls, and revenues; occupations of employees

distributed by sex of employee and by full-time and

part-time employment; wages paid to occupation

groups; fringe benefits; turnover and vacancy problems; use of Comprehensive Employment and

Training Act (CETA) or similarly subsidized

w^orkers; sources of new hires; and sources of funds

for starting or expanding operations. Data for 1976

provided a base for measuring growth. We believed

that 5 years was enough time for growth to occur

and for its effects to be distributed through the

economy. Also, our Kentucky study found that

respondents were able to recall data from 5 years

earlier.

The direct linkage, or cross-referencing, of workers'

households with their employers used data obtained

from a random sample of employees whose names

and addresses came from interviewed employers.

Enumerators selected this sample of employees

^For more information on the survey design, see f9j.

^Churches, private households employing workers, and military

units were not included in the establishment universe. Farms

and farm operators were not sampled as establishments but were

eligible for household interviews. See appendix A for details.

from employment rolls. This list of employees

formed the list frame sample of households.

Enumerators interviewed these workers and

members of their households at their homes using

the household questionnaire. Thus, we linked information about working residents with information

about their employers.

Area frame samples of establishments and

households supplemented the list frames in three

ways. First, the area frame sample of

establishments accounted for incompleteness of the

employer universe list. Although we attempted to

prepare a list that included all establishments, some

establishments were not on the list. Enumerators attempted to contact any establishment found in the

sampled land segments and not on the universe list.

Second, we used the area frame for households to

sample households which would not be eligible for

sampling through the list frame. These would include households with no employed members,

households whose employed members worked in

establishments within the study area but not on the

universe list of establishments, or worked in

establishments outside the study area. Third, we

used the area frame sample of households to increase the number of questionnaires completed

from black households. This assured an adequate

number of black households available for analysis.

This was accomplished by stratifying the area

frame to include a stratum including large numbers

of black residents.5

Enumerators interviewed list frame and area frame

households in January and February 1982 using the

household questionnaire. Data collected included

household composition and demographics, including age, race, sex, relationship to head, educational attainment, marital status, and health status.

All persons interviewed who were 16 years and

older were asked about their current, 1981, and

1976 labor force and employment status. Interviewers obtained occupation, employing industry,

hours and weeks worked, and wage rates for those

working. For those not working at the time of interview, in 1981, or in 1976, information on primary

activity, reasons for not working, and job search ef-

^Details on the survey design, stratification, sampling rates,

and response rates are presented in appendix A.
Schaub/Oliveira

forts was collected. Interviewers asked all adults

about participation in job training programs and

migration to the study site. Each household

reported whether any member had operated a farm

in 1981 or 1976, and for those who had, farm

operation data were obtained. Interviewers asked

each household a series of questions on sources

and amounts of income and participation in public

assistance and food programs in 1981 and 1976.

Establishments furnished 553 completed reports. A

total of 1,015 households containing 3,003 persons

completed interviews. These counts represented an

85-percent completion rate for both establishments

and households.

We measured the establishments and households in

south Georgia as they existed at the time of the

survey. Enumerators asked both establishments and

households to recall their circumstances in 1976.

An important note: interviews with current populations cannot fully describe the 10-county economy

as it existed in 1976 because some establishments

closed or moved away between 1976 and the time

of interview, and some people left the area. The

study measured and analyzed the establishments

and households remaining from 1976 and

newcomers to the area. The survey design did not

allow data collection from establishments and

households that came into the study site after 1976

but were no longer there in December 1981.

Because the data were derived from a survey rather

than a census, all estimates of totals, proportions,

and means in this report are subject to sampling error. Although a given estimate differs between two

or more subpopulations or variables, the differences

may not be statistically significant because of sample variation. Discussion in the text that compares

differences of subpopulations will be restricted to

those comparisons which are statistically significant

at the 95-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. Where the number of sample establishments,

households, or persons associated with a given attribute was less than 30, statistical testing was not

attempted. The tables show when establishment,

household, and person estimates were based on

fewer than 10 sample observations. Such estimates

typically have very large standard errors and

should be interpreted with care. However, for the

majority of estimates, the coefficient of variation

did not exceed 15 percent. Appendix B explains the

statistical tests.

Study Area's Economy and People

EDD selected the south Georgia study area because

it was a fast-growing rural economy with a mixed

agricultural/manufacturing industrial base. Another

important consideration in selecting the area was

the presence of a substantial black population

which permits analyses of the impacts of growth

for blacks. Our other growth studies won't sample

enough blacks to do this. This section describes the

study area's industrial structure and population.

Industrial Structure

The 10-county area's industrial structure was

typical of much of nonmetro America. It was

dominated numerically by services-producing

establishments. Fewer than 1,000 nonagricultural

goods producers and just 150 government units existed. The majority of all establishments had fewer

than 20 workers, and owners operated 1,160 units

(20 percent) with no paid help. The public sector

units were typified by mean- and high-wage levels.

Private sector employers were characterized as lowwage, but a fifth of the private enterprises were

classified as high-wage. One of every three

establishments was new since 1976, and 55 percent

started operations after 1971.

Data from the establishment survey represented an

estimated 5,800 private sector establishments and

150 government units (table 1). These units

employed about 74,000 persons in December 1981.

Employment among private sector establishments in

the study area was similar to the U.S. nonmetro

employment mix, by major industry group (24, 35).

However, the proportion of employment in government was slightly greater in the 10-county area than

in all nonmetro areas.

The study area's two largest industrial sectors,

government and wholesale and retail trade, each

supplied about the same number of wage and salary

jobs. Trade establishments were the most important

nonfarm source of self-employment jobs. Government had the largest annuaLpayroll, manufacturing
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

was second, and wholesale and retail trade was

third. Manufacturing establishments were the

largest employers in the private goods-producing

sector. The manufacturing sector included plants

producing wood products, textiles and clothing,

and processed agricultural products. The diverse

wholesale and retail trade industries included

establishments serving the agricultural sector. Much

of the government employment was in education

and health.^

Although the study area had a substantial commercial farming sector and sold $243 million of

agricultural products in 1978, agriculture was not a

major employer in the area f31J. Self-employed farm

operators accounted for 5,5 percent of all workers

in the area, and just over 6 percent of all wage and

^Establishment data in this report exclude civilian and armed

forces employment at Moody Air Force Base, Lowndes County.

salary earners worked in agriculture. The area's industrial growth was robust between 1972 and 1982,

when 54 percent of the area's establishments began

local operations. Manufacturing, construction, and

wholesale and retail trade started more recently

than the balance of the services-producing sector

and government. Only a third of the goodsproducing establishments and 38 percent of

wholesale and retail trade establishments were

more than 10 years old. In contrast, 60 percent of

services establishments and TCPU-FIRE (transportation, communications, and public utilities-finance,

insurance, and real estate) establishments operated

in the area before 1972.

Ninety percent of the establishments were small,

employing fewer than 20 workers and supplying 28

percent of the area's wage and salary jobs.

However, most of the wage and salary employment

was in the 10 percent of the establishments that

Table 1—Distribution of estimated estabiishiments and employment, by selected characteristics, December 1981

Establishments

Employment

Item

Total Wage and salary

Number Percent Number Percer)t Number Percent

Type of establishment:

Goods-producing

Construction, mining

Manufacturing

960

620

340

16.1

10.4

5.7

22,020

6,750

15,270

29.7

9.1

20.6

20,880

6,010

14,870

30.9

8.9

22.0

Services-producing

Wholesale, retail trade

TCPU-FIRE1

Other services2

4,840

2,540

630

1,670

81.4

42.7

10.6

28.1

34,820

19,940

6,000

8,880

47.1

27.0

8.1

12.0

29.660

17,160

5,460

7.040

43.8

25.3

8.1

10.4

Government^ 150 2,5 17,150 23.2 17,150 25.3

Size of establishment:

Fewer than 20 paid

employees

20 or more paid employees

No paid employees^

4,220

570

1,160

70.8

9.7

19.6

23,690

48,840

1,460

32.0

66.0

2.0

19,280

48,410

28.5

71.5

Total 5,950 100.0 73,990 100.0 67,690 100.0

= not applicable.

TCPU is transportation, communications, and public utilities; FIRE is finance, insurance, and real estate.

Includes hotels, personal, business, amusement, health, legal, education, and social services.

Includes Federal, State, county, city, or town government agencies.

Includes establishments operated by self-employed owners or partners with no paid employees.
Schaub/Oliveîra

employed 20 or more workers. Government units

and manufacturing establishments had the greatest

average size, 114 and 44 employees, respectively.

Some of the large government units were the public

school systems, public colleges, and hospitals.

Wholesale and retail trade establishments and other

services establishments were smallest. These two

industry groups had over 1,000 establishments with

no paid employees, which generally provided

employment only for establishment owners and

their families.

Most of the jobs (80 percent) provided by the area's

establishments were full-time wage and salary positions. Self-employed owners held 9 percent of the

area's jobs.^ The distribution of jobs among major

occupation groups was similar to that for all

nonmetro areas. About 18 percent of the wage and

salary jobs were held by executives, managers, and

professionals (including teachers and registered

nurses), and 53 percent of these executives,

managers, and professionals worked in government.

Nearly 43 percent of the wage and salary jobs were

held by technical workers, sales and service

workers, and clerks. The services-producing industries contained more than 65 percent of these

jobs. The remaining 39 percent of the wage and

salary jobs were in production and related occupations, just fewer than half of which were in the

goods-producing industries.^

Average wages paid to full-time workers in the

area's sampled establishments were below the national average ($224 per week compared with the

U.S. average of $255 per week paid by private

sector industries in 1981) (38J.® Low-wage establishments were the predominate employer among those

with full-time workers (table 2)." But, weekly wages

varied across industries and among establishments

within industries. Manufacturing, wholesale and

retail trade, and other services had the largest pro-

^Self-employed farmers are not included in table 1. They were

surveyed only through the household survey; thus, we excluded

farm operators in the establishment data.

^See Glossary for details about the specific occupations making

up each aggregate group. Ail occupational aggregations were

based on the groupings found in the 1977 Standard Occupational

Classification Manual (37],

^While there is a difference in the methods used to estimate

area and national wages, the difference was judged not serious

enough to prohibit the comparison. An industry wage level for

all nonmetro areas was not available.

portions of establishments in the low-wage

category. Government and TCPU-FIRE had the

largest proportions of establishments in the highwage category.

The distribution of establishments by wage level

was different than the distribution of wage and

salary jobs across wage categories. For example, 62

percent of employers with full-time workers were

classified as low-wage, but these employers accounted for 44 percent of the full-time wage and

salary employment. Low-wage estabHshments

averaged 10 full-time employees compared with 20

in mean-wage and high-wage establishments. The

private sector, in both the goods- and servicesproducing industries, had more employment in lowwage establishments than did the government sector. Within the private sector, services industries,

particularly TGPU-FIRE, reported more employment in high-wage establishments than did goodsproducing industries.

New jobs added during the previous 5 years furnished about 21 percent of the area's 1981 employment. More than 65 percent of the new jobs came

in establishments starting operations in the area

after 1976, and the rest were net additions from

older establishments. A third of the establishments

in 1981 were new to the area since 1976. Most of

the new establishments were in the private-service

sector, but some new government units and goods

producers also appeared. Older establishments

tended to have stable or increasing employment;

only 16 percent reported fewer employees in 1981

than in 1976.

Area Residents

The household sample represented 75,130

households and 213,780 persons (table 3). Almost

one-third of the area's population was black compared with 9 percent for all nonmetro areas f34j.

(All other racial and ethnic groups were included in

the overall population, but at less than 0.5 percent

^oThe wage classifications, low-, mean-, and high-wage, refers

to relative wage levels of establishments in the area only. The

classification is not intended to indicate wage differences of

establishments within and outside the area. Full-time employees

in low-wage establishments received weekly wages averaging less

than $202, full-time employees in mean-wage establishments

earned average weekly wages of $202 to $246, and in high-wage

establishments, full-time employees received wages averaging

more than $246 per week.
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

of the population, were statistically insignificant.)

The age structure of the area closely resembled that

for all nonmetro areas [32].^^ About 74 percent of

the whites and 63 percent of the blacks were of

labor force age, 16 or more years old.

More than 75 percent of the adult population was

long-term residents, having lived in the area con-

**The survey data are from 1982, but the race and age data for

all nonmetro areas come from the 1980 Census. It is not expected that the racial composition and age structure of the

10-county area changed significantly in 2 years.

tinuously since 1966. Fifty-eight percent of the inmigrants had moved to the area after 1976. Nearly

half of the inmigrants were return inmigrants; that

is, they had lived in the area, moved away, and

then returned sometime after 1966. Most of the

relatively few black inmigrants were return

inmigrants.

The area*s population had fewer years of formal

education than did the nonmetro population in

general, Only 54 percent of the area's adult population graduated from high school (56 percent of

Table 2—Average weekly wage levels of full-time wage and salary workers in private sector establishments and

government units, December 1981

Type of industry

Item

Total

Goods-producing Services-producing

Total

Construction,

mining

Manufacturing Total

Wholesale,

retail trade

TCPUFIRE2

Other

services^

Government^

Number

Establishment^ 4,240 810 480 330 3,280 1,810

Percent

560 910 150

Low-wage (less than $202

per week)

Mean-wage ($202-$246 per

week)

High-wage (more than $246

per week)

61.5

16.7

21.8

60.6

26.5

12.9

56.9

35.1

8.06

65.9

14.0

20.1

63.2 65.8

13.7 14.2

23.1 20.0

Number

44.5

11.06

44.5

69.3

14.6

16.1

28.86

28.4

42.8

Full-time wage and salary

workers^ 59,110 20,340 5,720 14.620 23,870 13,070

Percent

5,070 5,730 14,900

Low-wage (less than $202

per week)

Mean-wage ($202-$246 per

week)

High-wage (more than $246

per week)

43.7

26.4

29.9

55.2

29.0

15.8

69.6

20.2

10.26

49.6

32.5

17.9

53.0 57.6

14.7 14.1

32.3 28.3

23.0

14.66

62.4

69.0

16.0

15.0

13.16

41.7

45.2

11ncludes only establishments with full-time wage and salary workers.

2TCPU is transportation, communications, and public utilities; FIRE is finance, Insurance, and real estate.

^Includes hotels, personal, business, amusement, health, legal, education, and social services.

"»Includes Federal, State, county, city, or town government agencies.

^Represents workers working 30 or more hours per week.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.
Schaub/Olîveira

Table 3—Description of the area's population, January

1982

Item Units Total White Black

Estimated total persons No. 213,780 145,460 68,320

Persons, by sex:

Male

Female

Pet.

do.

46.5

53.5

47.4

52.6

44.6

55.4

Persons, by age:

Under 16 years

16 to 24 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 years and over

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

do.

29.3

14.6

15.4

20.4

9.3

11.0

25.5

13.3

16.8

22.0

10.4

12.0

37.4

17.3

12.3

17.0

7.0

9.0

Mean age Years 32.2 34.0 28.3

Adult population, 16

years and older No. 151,120 108,360 42,760

Residency status:^

Long-term resident

Inmigrant

do.

do.

115,290

35,830

77,110

31,250

38,180

4,580

Early inmigrant

Recent inmigrant

Pet.

do.

41.7

58.3

39.7

60.3

54.8

45.2

Return inmigrant

New inmigrant

do.

do.

49.1

50.9

46.6

53.4

65.9

34.1

Schooling completed:

Less than 12 years

12 years

More than 12

years

do.

do.

do.

46.2

32.8

21.0

39.1

34.7

26.2

64.1

28.1

7.8

Mean schooling Years 10.8 11.4 9.3

Estimated households No. 75,130 54,960 20,170

Mean household size Persons 2.8 2.7 3.4

Mean household

income

Per capita income

Dollars

do.

15,200

5,313

17,026

6,408

10,447

3,080

1 Long-term residents residecj in the study area continuously between December 31, 1966, and January 1982. Early inmigrants

moved to the study area between January 1, 1967, and December

31, 1976. Recent inmigrants moved to the study area between

January 1, 1977, and January 1982. Return inmigrants, both early

and recent inmigrants, had moved from the study area, lived outside the area for some time, and then moved back to the area

after January 1, 1967, Naw inmigrants had not previously lived in

the area.

adults age 18 years and older) compared with 65

percent for all nonmetro areas (33).'^^ Blacks completed less education than whites. More than 60

percent of the whites graduated from high school,

but less than 36 percent of the blacks completed

high school. Mean years of schooling for whites

was 11.4 years compared with only 9.3 years for

blacks.

The average household size, 2.8 persons, was

similar to that for all nonmetro places (29). Black

households were larger and more likely to be

headed by a woman than were white households.

The mean household income for whites was nearly

$6,600 higher than for blacks. Average household

income in the study area for 1981 was $2,700 below

the average for the nonmetro South (30). Belowaverage incomes may be related to the finding that

survey households had fewer earners per household

and the income earners earned lower weekly wages

in 1981 compared with national averages.

At the time of the household survey in January

1982, almost 60 percent of the study area's adult

population was in the labor force, either working or

looking for work, compared with 60.5 percent of all

nonmetro adults (table 4) f35J. The balance of

residents had no current attachment to the labor

force. About 8 percent of the labor force in the

10-county area was unemployed, lower than the

10.2-percent rate in all nonmetro areas.

^^The Bureau of the Census reports educational levels for all

persons age 18 and older.

Table 4—Labor force status of adult population,

January 1982

Item 10-county study area

Number

Adult population

Labor force

Employed

Unemployed

Not in labor force

151,120

90,110

82,470

7,640

61.010

Percent

Labor force participation rate

Unemployment rate

59.6

8.5

10
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data showed

that total employment in the area increased by 11,5

percent between 1976 and 1981, which provided

opportunities for persons entering the labor force

(36). Twenty percent of the area's work force in

January 1982 was not in the labor force 5 years

earlier. About 75 percent of these new entrants

were white. The majority of the new entrants were

youths (16 to 24 years of age), a group which

typically has little prior work experience. Women

made up a large share of the new entrants, accounting for over 60 percent of both the white and black

entrants. The influx of women into the area's labor

force paralleled the trend in other nonmetro areas

in the last decade (24, 35}.

Less than 5 percent of all workers held more than

one job at the time of the survey. Out-commuting

by the employed residents of the area was minimal;

only 5.5 percent of the employed commuted to jobs

outside the 10-county area.

Employment Growth

Jobs exist because establishments demand labor as

well as land, energy, and raw materials. Each

establishment determines the number of workers it

wishes to hire based on the price of labor, prices of

other inputs, the methods of production available,

and the demand for the final goods and services

produced. The composite of individual establishment decisions and the willingness of people to

supply their labor determines an area's

employment.

About 21 percent of the jobs in the area in 1981

were created after 1976, and more than 65 percent

of them were in new establishments. Large

employers (who employed 20 or more workers)

created more new jobs than did small

establishments. The typical new establishment was

in the private services-producing sector and had

fewer than 20 employees. New manufacturing

establishments employed more workers than new

services-producing establishments. Old or ongoing

establishments added about one-third of the new

jobs. These employers were larger than the new

ones, and they were more likely to pay higher

wages than the new establishments. New

establishments had a significantly smaller proportion of their workers in high-wage executive,

managerial, and professional occupations than the

ongoing establishments.

Branch and headquarter plants of multiestablishment firms employed 46 percent of the area's wage

and salary workers. The headquarters for about 52

percent of these employees were outside the study

area. Public officials watch closely multiestablishment employers because of the policy concern that

absentee owners would give less consideration to

the community's welfare than would local owners

in making decisions to cut back or even close out

operations.

Sources of New Jobs

New jobs result from the formation of new firms

and the expansion of existing firms (1, 5, 9, 25j.

These sources of new employment provided jobs

for new labor force entrants, inmigrants, and

displaced workers from establishments that closed,

moved away, or reduced their work forces. Onethird of the establishments in south Georgia were

new, that is, they started local operations between

1976 and 1981 (table 5). Nearly a fourth of the

establishments were ongoing units that increased

employment after 1976. Clearly, development efforts

should not look solely to new establishments for job

creation; ongoing establishments can expand to

generate jobs. Table 5 classifies 2,540 establishments as not expanding employment. Only 620 of

these establishments decreased employment; the remainder had stable employment. If even a fraction

of these stable employers expanded, significant

employment gains could result. Survey procedures

did not permit estimation of the number of

establishments ceasing operations between 1976

and 1981.

Nearly 40 percent of the establishments formed

since 1976 reported no full-time wage and salary

workers. Nevertheless, they are important because

they provided jobs for owner-operators, some parttime jobs for salaried employees, and goods and

services to the community. Some of these small

units may eventually expand employment, but many

will likely remain small enterprises like the 950

ongoing establishments that reported no full-time

employees. Only 6 percent of the new employers

11
Schaub/OIiveira

employed 20 or more workers. Half of these new

employers were in wholesale or retail trade. Entry

into trade is relatively easy because only general entrepreneurial skills are usually needed. Industries

like manufacturing and construction require

specialized skills and perhaps more capital. Most

new establishments either had no full-time workers

or paid average weekly wages less than $202, but

one-fifth of them paid either mean or high wages.

Expanding establishments had some characteristics

like the new establishments, small work forces,

services=producing, and low-wage, but some important characteristics were different. First, more expanding establishments employed 20 or more

workers» Second, government had a higher percentage of ongoing units expand than did goods producers or services producers. Third, high-wage

Table 5—Establishments, by selected characteristics, 1981

establishments accounted for a larger percentage of

expanding establishments than new or nonexpanding establishments. So, expanding employers offer

the durability associated with bigness, the insulation from recession associated with government

units, and the larger income gains associated with

high-wage establishments.

Numbers and Types of Jobs

New establishments created more jobs than ongoing

ones. Net new wage and salary jobs totaled 15,650,

two-thirds of which were in new establishments

(table 6], Large employers were more important

sources of job growth than small ones. Among new

establishments, newly created jobs were about evenly divided between large and small employers, but

among expanding establishments, 70 percent of the

Establishments Establishments

New establishments, increasing decreasing or not

Item Establishments 1976-81 employment,

1976-81

changing employment,

1976-81

Number

Toial 5,950 1,970

Perc

1,440

ent

2,540

Wage category

of establishment:!

Low-wage 43.8 39.6 49.8 43.6

Mean-wage 11.9 11.7 15.7 9.9

High-wage 15.5 9.9 27.8 13.0

No full-time workers 28.8 38.8 6.75 33.5

Type of establishment:

Goods-producing2 16.1 19.2 15.6 14.0

Services-producing^ 81.4 78.8 79.4 84.6

Government^ 2.5 2.05 5.0 1.4

Size of establishment

in 1981:

Fewer than 20 paid

employees 90.3 93.8 79.4 93.8

20 or more paid

employees 9.7 6.2 20.6 6.2

1 Based on average wages paid to full-time workers working 30 or more hours per week.

^Includes manufacturing, construction, and mining.

^Includes wholesale and retail trade; transportation, communication, public utilities; finance, insurance, and real estate; hotels, personal,

business, amusement, health, legal, education, and social services.

^Includes Federal, State, county, city, or town government agencies.

^Estimate is based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

12
Employment Growth/IQ Georgia Counties

job growth came from large employers. Development efforts, focusing on attracting large

employers, pay off in that a single large unit

created as many new jobs as 18 small units in the

study area. Other definitions of small and large

employers would change this particular relationship, but any reasonable definition of size applied

to the Georgia study data would show that the

number of employees of an establishment and job

creation are related, and that large employers

created more jobs. However, the risk of losing more

jobs from a single plant closure is greater than with

a large employer.

Growth from expansion of ongoing establishments

created jobs more uniformly across the goods, services, and government sectors than growth from

new establishments which created jobs primarily in

the services sector. This is not surprising because

most of the new units were in the services sector.

An expanding government unit added significantly

more jobs than an expanding private sector

establishment, an average of 30 jobs per unit compared with 5 jobs per establishment. And, jobs

created by government units tended to be

high-wage.

Table 6—Employment change, by selected establishment characteristics, 1976-81

New jobs

Employment change byEstablishments

Item since Establishments decreasing or not

1976 New establishments, increasing changing employment.

1976-81 employment, 1976-81 1976-81

Number

Total jobs 15,650 10,330 8,880

Percent

-3,560

Jobs in establishments,

by wage category,

1981:1

Low-wage 58.2 70.7 36.8 41.0

Mean-wage 19.2 12.5 29.1 24.5

High-wage 21.3 13.1 32.7 25.9

No full-time workers 1.3 3.7 1.45 8.6

Establishments, by type,

1981:

Goods-producing2 29.4 37.7 32.8 62.0

Services-producing3 55.6 58.0 43.2 31.8

Government'^ 15.0 4.35 24.0 6.2

Establishments in 1981

with:

Fewer than 20 paid

employees 38.1 46.8 31.2 46.0

20 or more paid

employees 61.9 53.2 68.8 54.0

^Based on average wages paid to full-time workers working 30 or more hours per week.

^Includes manufacturing, construction, and mining.

^Includes wholesale and retail trade; transportation, communication, and public utilities; finance, insurance, and real estate; hotels, personal, business, amusement, health, legal, education, and social services.

"^Includes Federal, State, county, city, or town government agencies.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

13
Schaub/Oliveîra

Net employment growth from ongoing units tended

to be evenly distributed across different wage-level

establishments, while new establishment employment concentrated in low-wage units (table 6]. Expanding employers did not create as many jobs as

new ones, but they paid their employees higher

wages (table 7], A job created by expansion in the

study area increased incomes more than a job

created by a newly formed establishment because

the average weekly wage paid was $237 in expanding establishments compared with $189 in new

establishments. Again, about four of five of the new

establishments were services-producing, an industry

which paid relatively low wages in the study area.

Besides type of industry, the occupations employed

by new and expanding establishments affected

wage rates and income levels. New employers provided relatively few salaried executive, administrative, managerial, and professional jobs

(table 8), and the wages paid these workers were

below wages of ongoing establishments (table 7). Instead, these functions were frequently performed by

owner-operators in the new establishments, which

employed more people at entry-level positions, requiring little experience or training. In general,

sales, clerical, and services workers were employed

by new retail and service industries, while construction workers, machine operators, and low-skill

general laborers were employed by new goodsproducing industries. We did not ask expanding

employers which occupations made up their newly

created jobs, but we do know their overall occupation mix and two distinctive results. First, highwage job growth was more likely in expanding

establishments because 20 percent of their work

force included executive and professional jobs compared with 10 percent for new establishments.

Second, expanding units employed a greater variety

of occupations than new establishments because the

industry mix of expanding units was more diverse.

Thus, expanding establishments offered a wider

assortment of jobs and salary ranges.

New establishments hired men and women in about

equal numbers, but few women were in executive

or managerial positions. The chief occupational

group for women in both new and ongoing units

was the technical, sales, clerical, and service group.

Wages for this group were about the same as wages

in the production and related occupations group,

but they were significantly lower than wages for executives, managers, and professionals (table 7). Like

new establishments, expanding units hired men and

Table 7»Âverâge weakly wage of wage and salary workers In new and ongoing establishments, 1981

All

establishments

New

establishments,

1976-81

Ongoing establishments

Item Expanding

employment Not expanding employment

Doliars

Average weekly wage of all

establishments"" 224 189 237 216

Average weekly wage, by

occupation:

Executive, administrative,

managerial, professional

Technical, marketing, sales,

clerical, services

Production and related

occupations^

351

193

193

315

182

163

357

198

205

352

186

188

•Based on wages received by full-time workers in private sector establishments and government agencies. Establishments with no fulltime workers are not included in this table. See table 5 for percentage of establishments with no full-time workers.

^Includes construction, mining, manufacturing, transportation and material moving, mechanics and repairers, material handlers, equipment cleaners, and general laborers.

14
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

women in equal numbers. But, unlike new establishments, they employed equal numbers of

men and women in executive and professional occupations. Women had access to jobs in both new

and expanding units, and they had greater access to

better paying executive and professional work in

expanding establishments.

A larger percentage of the jobs in new establishments were part-time positions compared

with ongoing establishments. Although part-time

jobs do not provide as much income as full-time

jobs and often do not carry the fringe benefits

associated with full-time jobs, they should not be

assumed to be undesirable. Moonlighters benefit

Table 8—Selected characteristics of wage and salary workers tn new and ongoing establishments, 1981

Ongoing establishments

All

establishments

New

Item establishments. Expanding

1976-81 employment Not expanding employment

Number

Totai wage and salary workers 67,690 10,330 38,090

Percent

19,270

Male 50.5 48.8 48.2 56.1

Female 49.5 51.2 51.8 43.9

Full-time workers"' 87.3 82.5 87.8 88.9

Part-time workers 12.7 17.5 12.2 11.1

Wage and salary workers in

establishments with:^

Fewer than 20 paid

employees 28.5 46.8 19.2 37.0

20 or more paid

employees 71.5 53.2 80.8 63.0

Wage and salary workers in:

Goods-producing establishments 30.9 37.8 28.1 32.6

Services-producing establishments 43.8 58.0 36.8 50.0

Government^ 25.3 4.25 35.1 17.4

Wage and salary workers, by

occupation:

Executive, administrative,

managerial, professional 18.2 10.9 21.0 16.6

Technical, marketing,

sales, clerical, service 42.8 44.6 42.9 41.6

Production and related

occupations^ 39.0 44.5 36.1 41.8

1 Full-time workers worked 30 or more hours per week. Part-time workers worked fewer than 30 hours per week.

^Based on the number of full- or part-time employees,

^includes Federal, State, county, city, or town government agencies.

"^Includes construction, mining, manufacturing, transportation and material moving, mechanics and repairers, material handlers, equipment cleaners, and general laborers.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

15
Schaub/OIiveira

from part-time jobs used to supplement their income, and workers who can't commit themselves to

full-time schedules benefit from the availability of

part-time employment.

The Influence of Multiestabilshment Firms

Multiestablishment firms employ a substantial portion of the workers in nonmetro areas and play an

important role in job creation (1, 5, 9, 25]. The

policy interest in multiestablishment firms arises

from their ability to create jobs in several areas and

the concern that branch establishm.ents with

absentee owners may be more likely to be lured

away than establishments with local owners.

The area had about 1,000 establishments that were

branches or headquarters of multiestablishment

firms. These establishments employed 46 percent of

the area's private sector wage and salary workers

(table 9). Multiestablishment employers in the

goods-producing sector were relatively few in

number but large in size, averaging 9G employees.

In the services-producing sector, multiestablishment

employers were smaller but still larger than the

average single establishment.

Multiestablishment employers were a fruitful source

of jobs in the study area, responsible for adding

5,030 net new jobs between 1976 and 1981, which

was one-third of the new jobs created. A new

multiestablishment headquarters or branch plant

added an average 5 jobs per unit compared with 1.7

jobs per new single establishment. Expanding

multiestablishment employers also created more

jobs than expanding single establishments, 3,810

jobs in multiestablishment units and 2,940 jobs in

single establishments.

The area's vulnerability to employment and

operating decisions made outside the local area was

assessed by examining the characteristics of

multiestablishment firms with headquarters located

elsewhere. Several large manufacturing plants, if

closed, would trigger large job losses, but the area's

economy was mostly locally controlled. Out-ofarea headquarters oversaw 58 percent of the

multiestablishment firms and 24 percent of the

private sector employment. Most concern was

focused on the few large branch manufacturing

plants. However, two factors limited the risk of

substantial manufacturing employment losses from

outside decisions. Some large plants were processors of inputs from the area's large agricultural

sector and forests. These sources of inputs were

stable. And, the other plants collectively manufactured more than a single type of product, a diversification that makes it unlikely that many

Table 9—Estimated number of private sector establishments and wage and salary employment, by location

of headquarters, December 1981

Total Type of industry

Type of establishment

Establishments Employment

Goods-producing Services-producing

Establishments Employment Establishments Employment

All private sector

establishments

Single establishments

Multiestablishments

Headquarters in area

Headquarters not in

area

Number

5,800 50,540 960 20,880 4,840 29,660

Percent

82.8 54.1 87.5 48.5 81.8 58.0

17.2 45.9 12.5 51.5 18.2 42.0

7.2 22.0 8.31 29.8 7.0 16.5

10.0 23.9 4.21 21.7 11.2 25.5

1 Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

16
Economic Growth Is Good For Everyone. Right?

Not necessarily, according to recent findings from USDA's Economic Research Service. Find

out from these related reports just what can happen when rapid economic growth comes to

a rural area.

Will Employment Growth Benefit All Households?

A Case Study in Nine Nonmetro Kentucky Counties, by Donald K. Larson and Claudia K. White.

SN: 001-019-00425-8.

Overall economic growth in a rural area will probably

not benefit all households or residents in that area.

In a nine-county area of south central Kentucky,

rapid employment growth between 1974 and 1979

did create new job opportunities. However, only 18

percent of the households had members who took

advantage of the new jobs. The employment growth

also did not reduce the area's overall poverty level.

About as many households fell into poverty as left

the poverty ranks during the study period. Some

population groups, such as households headed by

women, remained economically disadvantaged

despite the area's growth. Other groups, such as the

elderly, maintained their income status by relying on

public and private income transfer programs.

Distribution of Employment Growth in Nine Kentucky Counties: A Case Study, by Stan G.

Daberkow, Donald K. Larson, Robert Coltrane, and

Thomas A. Carlin.

SN: 001-019-00337-5.

Rapid employment growth between 1974 and 1979

in a nine-county study area of south central Kentucky provided job opportunities both for local

residents and for persons with limited labor force experience. But, recent inmigrants held a disproportionate share of better paying executive jobs. This

case study, which examines the distributional effects

of rapid employment growth in a nonmetro area,

shows that inmigrants also held a disproportionate

share of jobs in growing business establishments.

Although manufacturing was the major economic

force in the study area in January 1980, jobs in the

private service sector increased more than in other

sectors.

Distribution of Employment Growth in 10 Georgia

Counties: A Case Study, by James D.

Schaub and Victor J. Oliveira.

SN: 001-019-00412-6.

Rapid economic growth in a 10-county rural area in

south Georgia during 1976-81 favored employment

of whites, men, and inmigrants. They earned higher

average weekly salaries than blacks, women, and

long-term residents. This study of growth in a mixed

manufacturing- and agricultural-based economy flows

from a research project on the impacts of economic

expansion in nonmetro economies with different industrial bases. The Georgia area's job growth was

greatest in the trades and services sectors. Few

businesses used public sector funds to start or expand their operations. Government employed 25 percent of the area's wage and salary workers.

For prices of these reports, write to

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

Order from the above address, making your

check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. For faster service, call

GPO's order desk at (202) 783-3238 and

charge your purchase to your Visa, l\/lasterCard, or GPO Deposit Account. Specify title

and stock number. A 25-percent bulk discount

is available on orders of 100 or more copies

shipped to a single address. Please add 25 percent extra for postage for shipments to a

foreign address.
Schaub/Oiiveira

Long-term Residents and Inmigrants

Do inmigrants reduce the employment benefits accruing to the long-term residents in developing

areas? Some researchers hypothesize that inmigrants have an advantage over long-term

residents in the labor market because inmigrants

usually have more schooling, training, and skills [7,

9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 28]. Long-term residents may be

unable to compete successfully for higher wages

and better jobs and may be crowrded out of lower

wage and less desirable jobs. Thus, rural development may be a process of hosting employment opportunities for newcomers with only minor labor

market gains for the indigenous population.

Analysis of the Georgia data revealed that inmigrants had a significantly higher labor force participation rate than long-term residents (table 10).

Among employed persons, the educational attainTable 10—Selected characteristics of ttie adult population, by residency status, January 1982

Total

Residency status

Item Long-term

residents

All

inmigrants

Early

inmigrants

Recent

inmigrants

Number

Adult population 151,120 115,290 35,830

Percent

14,930 20,900

Race:

White

Black

71.7

28.3

66.9

33.1

87.2

12.8

83.2

16.8

90.1

9.9

Labor force participation

rate

Employment rate

Unemployment rate^

59.6

54.7

8.5

56.4

51.3

9.0

70.1

65.0

7.0

Number

72.2

68.3

5.5

68.7

63.0

8.2

Employed persons 82,470 59,100 23,370

Percent

10,200 13,170

Major occupation:

Executive, administrative, managerial,

professional

Technical, marketing,

sales, clerical,

services

Production and related

occupations

15.0

47.7

37.3

12.6

49.1

38.3

21.0

44.1

34.9

Years

23.4

45.7

30.9

19.1

42.9

38.0

Average age

Average education

38.1

11.8

38.9

11.3

35.9

12.9

Dollars

39.3

12.6

33.3

13.2

Average weekly earnings,

19812 238 223 275 265 283

1 Percentage of the labor force unemployed.

2Based on eamlngs of full-time wage and salary workers.

18
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

ment of both early and recent inmigrants was

higher than for long-term residents. Eighty-two percent of recent inmigrants and 74 percent of early

inmigrants had completed high school compared

with 63 percent of the long-term residents. Recent

inmigrants were younger than both early inmigrants and long-term residents, and a larger pro=

portion of inmigrants than long-term residents

reported participation in a job training program

since 1970. Inmigrants were better prepared to

compete in the labor market in terms of formal

education and job training, and this apparently

allowed inmigrants to get higher paying jobs.

The mean weekly earnings of long-term residents

lagged those of early inmigrants by $42 and those

of recent inmigrants by $60. This difference in

earnings was consistent with the occupational

distributions of the two groups. Inmigrants more

often worked in the higher wage executive and professional positions; long-term residents had a larger

proportion of jobs in blue-collar service and production occupations and tended to receive lower wages.

Finding that inmigrants enjoyed superior labor

market status compared with long-term residents

supports the hypothesis that inmigrants not only

compete more successfully for jobs but also obtain

better paying jobs than long-term residents. Not all

inmigrants were newcomers in the strict sense, taking jobs that long-term residents might feel were

rightfully theirs. Forty-nine percent of all adult inmigrants were returnees, and 52 percent of

employed inmigrants had lived in the 10-county

area before. Thus, the labor market competition between inmigrants and long-term residents was not

as great as it might seem because half of the return

inmigrants were area natives.

It might be expected that inmigrants to a rapidly

growing region like the Georgia study area would

take a disproportionate share of the newly created

jobs in new establishments and expanding

establishments, especially when long-term residents

have inadequate skills and numbers to meet the

demands of employers. This hypothesis can't be

tested directly because we were unable to identify

the newly created jobs in establishments in operation in the area in both 1976 and 1981. The only

newly created jobs which we could specifically

identify were those in newly created establishments. The large difference in earnings levels between long-term residents and inmigrants suggested

that long-term residents may be disproportionately

represented among low-wage establishments, and

that inmigrants may be disproportionately

represented among high-wage establishments.

The link analysis in table 11 shows that the

distribution of employed persons across establishTable 11—Selected characteristics of iiniced wage and

salary employées, by residency status,

1981^

Total

Residency status

Item Long-term All

residents inmigrants2

Number

Total linked wage and

salary employees 55,870 40,920

Percent

14,950

Establishment characteristics:

Wage category—

Low-wage 42.6 45.1 35.8

Mean-wage 32.2 31.3 34.5

High-wage 25.2 23.6 29.7

Type—

Goods-producing 35.8 37.5 31.1

Servicesproducing 36.7 37.0 35.8

Government 27.5 25.5 33.1

Size—

Fewer than 20

paid

employees 30.2 30.8 28.9

20 or more paid

employees 69.8 69.2 71.1

Employment

change,

1976-81 —

New

establishments 10.7 11.1 9.6

Growth

establishments^ 57.7 55.8 62.9

No-growth

establishments^ 31.6 33.1 27.5

"•Wage and salary workers sampled from the employment rolls

of the surveyed establishments.

2There were fewer than 30 early and recent inmigrant observations for most of the establishment characteristics shown.

^Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

19
Schaub/Oliveira

ment types was related to residency status. Longterm residents were more likely to be employed in

low-wage establishments; however, inmigrants

showed no advantage in securing employment in

either mean-wage or high-wage establishments. Inmigrants were not significantly more likely to get

jobs in new and growth establishments, and no

significant differences existed in the industry types

or establishment sizes employing inmigrants and

long-term residents, except for government. Inmigrants had a significant employment advantage

in government. Survey data showed that long-term

residents benefited from growth because they could

compete successfully for jobs in new and growth

establishments, in the private sector, high-wage

establishments, and in various industries and sizes

of establishments. Inmigrants appeared, however, to

have an advantage over long-term residents in

securing higher paying jobs, and a larger percentage of the inmigrant adults participated in the labor

force.

Blacks and Whites

Labor market theory suggests that because of higher

educational attainment, better training, greater

work experience, and possible discrimination

against hiring blacks, whites have an advantage

over blacks when competing in the labor market.

The higher unemployment rate for blacks and the

greater average earnings of white workers is well

documented [12, 24, 26, 27, 39). Analysis of the

10-county Georgia data, in agreement with other

studies, showed that blacks and whites did not

share equally in the benefits from increased

employment opportunities.

Results showed that blacks were three times as

likely as whites to be unemployed (table 12).

Employed blacks were concentrated in lower wage

occupations, and about half of all black workers

worked in the lower wage production and related

jobs compared with only a third of the white

workers. Within the executive and professional, and

technical, sales, and service occupation categories,

blacks tended to hold lower paying jobs, such as

teachers, social workers, and service workers.

Whites were more likely than blacks to be executives, managers, salespersons, or clerks. This difference in jobs held by blacks and whites was

reflected in the average weekly earnings for whites

which were $65 greater than that of blacks.

Economic growth in the area did not eliminate the

employment and earnings disadvantages of blacks.

Table 12—Selected characteristics of workers, by race,

January 1982

Item Total White Black

Number

Total adult population 151,120 108,360

Percent

42,760

Labor force participation

rate

Employment rate

Unemployment rate^

59.6

54.6

8.5

61.8

58.5

5.4

Number

54.1

44.6

17.5

Employed persons 82,470 63,380 19,090

Sex:

Male

Female

56.9

43.1

Percent

58.4

41.6

51.7

48.3

Residency status:

Long-term residents

Early inmigrants

Recent inmigrants

71.7

12.4

15.9

67.5

14.0

18.5

85.4

6.9

7.7

Wage workers worl<ing:

Fuil-time2

Part-time

81.0

9.4

80.6

8.0

82.2

14.1

Self-employed workers 9.6 11.4 3.7^

Major occupation:

Executive,

administrative,

managerial,

professional

Technical, marketing,

sales, clerical,

services

Production and related

occupations

15.0

47.7

37.3

16.8

50.1

33.1

Years

9.0

39.8

51.2

Average age

Average education

38.1

11.8

38.2

12.2

Dollars

37.6

10.3

Average weekly

earnings, 19813 238 253 188

1 Percentage of the labor force unemployed.

^Worked 30 or more hours per week.

^Based on earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

20
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

Two important factors might explain the relatively

lower labor market position of the black population:

education and work experience. More than 70 percent of all white workers had completed high

school compared with 50 percent of employed

blacks. On average, white workers completed about

2 years more schooling than black workers; low

educational achievement may have excluded many

blacks from skilled jobs. To measure the work experience of blacks and whites, we compared the

two groups using employment status in 1976 (working or not working) and weeks worked in 1976. The

results showed no significant difference by race in

either measure. Apparently, low levels of education

and not lack of work experience limited the

benefits of growth from accruing to blacks.

Self-employment was rare among blacks compared

with whites. A similar self-employment pattern existed in national nonmetro employment data [35].

Blacks' lower self-employment levels could be one

factor in explaining their higher unemployment rate

because self-employed persons are less likely than

wage and salary workers to be counted as

unemployed. To the extent that women received

lower wages than men, the sex composition of the

area's work force may have reduced the overall

average weekly earnings of blacks because women

made up a larger proportion of black than white

workers. Whites constituted a larger proportion of

inmigrants than did blacks, and area newcomers

received higher wages and had lower unemployment rates than long-term residents. Few observations on black inmigrants limit statistically reliable

conclusions about their participation in the area's

job market.

The difference in average weekly earnings by race

suggests that blacks worked at low-wage jobs and

whites at high-wage jobs. Although the linked

worker sample (table 13) showed no significant difference by race in the distribution of employment

across low-wage and mean-wage establishments,

white workers were significantly more likely than

black workers to be employed in high-wage

establishments.

Blacks were most often employed in goodsproducing establishments which employ most lower

wage production and related occupations. Whites

most frequently worked in services-producing industries. Government employed about the same proportion of workers in each race. Black workers

were more likely than whites to work in large

establishments and growth establishments.

Although blacks had a higher unemployment rate

than whites, blacks were able to obtain jobs related

to the growth process as shown by the substantial

numbers of black workers in growth establishments.

However, blacks appeared to have a disadvantage

in getting higher wage jobs. The high unemployment rate of the area's blacks may have been

related to their occupations being particularly

vulnerable to declining economic conditions such

as those at the time of the survey in late 1981 and

early 1982. While large establishments and growth

establishments offered employment opportunities

for blacks, apparently occupation, and not establishment type, was the more important factor resulting

in the lower labor market position of blacks.

Table 13—Selected characteristics of linked wage and

salary workers, by worker's race, 1981

Item Total White Black

Number

All linked wage and salary

employees " 55,870 41,710

Percent

14,160

Establishment characteristics:

Wage category—

Low-wage

Mean-wage

High-wage

42.6

32.2

25.2

41.3

30.5

28.2

46.5

36.9

16.6

Type—

Goods-producing

Services-producing

Government

35.8

36.7

27.5

29.5

41.9

28.6

54.1

21.4

24.5

SizeFewer than 20 paid employees

20 or more paid employees

30.2

69=8

34.4

65.6

18.1

81.9

Employment change, 1976-81:

New establishments

Growth establishments^

No-growth establishments^

10.7

57.7

31.6

11.5

54.8

33.7

8.3

66.1

25.6

1 Wage and salary workers sampled from the employment rolls

of the surveyed establishments.

^Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

21
Schaub/OIiveira

The survey data suggested that rural development

which generated jobs without regard to type of job

failed to provide equal employment benefits for

blacks compared with whites. The lower education

levels of blacks may at least partially explain their

lower average weekly earnings, by concentrating

blacks in low=skill, low-wage production and related

occupations.

Men and Women

Between 1973 and 1982, a net of 13 million women

entered the U.S. labor force (35). During that

period, the number of nonmetro female workers increased by 31 percent, more than four times the

growth for nonmetro males. Possible explanations

for the increased labor force participation of

women included: more favorable attitudes toward

women who work outside the home; inflation that

caused many households to add a second income to

maintain standards of living; decisions to postpone

having children and limit family size which enabled

more women to work; and decreased discrimination

in hiring women (24j.

Employment opportunities resulting from rural

development can have important consequences for

women [9), Besides helping maintain or increase a

family's standard of living, working women are

sometimes the sole breadwinner in many

households. Nearly 28 percent of all households in

the 10-county study area were female-headed,

creating a policy interest in determining the extent

to which women in the study area participated in

the labor force and benefited from employment

growth during 1976-81.

Women made up 43 percent of the 10-county area's

employed residents in January 1982 (table 14). Their

labor force participation rate was about 49 percent,

significantly below that for males in the area, while

their unemployment rate of 11.8 percent was twice

the rate for males. While labor force participation

rates for both sexes were similar to national

nonmetro rates, males in the study area experienced an unemployment rate below the national

rate for men, while females had an unemployment

rate above that found in all nonmetro areas for

women (35). Employed men and women had similar

average ages, educational levels, and residency

statuses. However, women were less likely than

men to be self-employed, and among wage earners,

more likely to work part-time.

Male workers earned an average of $94 per week

more than female workers partly because women in

the area tended to hold lower skilled and lower

wage jobs than men. The proportions of male and

Table 14--'Seiected characteristics of workers, by sex,

January 1982

Item Total Male Female

Number

Toial adult population 151,120 68,040

Percent

83,080

Labor force participation rate

Employment rate

Unemployment rate^

59.6

54.6

8.5

i

73.1

68.9

5.7

Numbet

48.6

42.8

11.8

Employed persons 82,470 46,910

Percent

35,560

Residency status:

Long-term residents

Early inmigrants

Recent inmigrants

71.7

12.3

te.o

70.0

12.5

17.5

73.8

12.2

14.0

Wage workers working:

Full-time2 81.0 80.2 81.9

Part-time 9.4 5.1 15.1

Self-employed workers: 9.6 14.7 3.0

Major occupation:

Executive, administrative,

managerial, professional

Technical, marketing,

sales, clerical, services

Production and related

15.0

47.7

14 8

39.0

15.2

59.1

occupations 37.3 46.2

Years

25.7

Average age

Average education

38.1

11.8

38.7

11.6

Dollars

37.2

12.0

Average weekly earnings,

19813

238 279 185

1 Percentage of the labor force unemployed.

2Worked 30 or more hours per week.

3Based on earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

22
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

female workers in the executive and professional

occupational group were not significantly different.

However, within that group, men more likely held

executive, managerial, and administrative positions,

while women worked in such professional occupations as teacher and nurse. Female workers were

more likely than males to work in technical, sales,

and service occupations. Within that group, women

dominated the clerical occupations, while men held

sales, marketing, and agricultural occupations. Male

workers were significantly more likely than females

to work in production and related occupations.

Within the production and related occupational

group, men were more prevalent among construction, transportation, and repair-related occupations,

while most women in this group were machine

operators.

The proportion of females working for low-wage

establishments was significantly larger than that of

males, and the proportion of females working for

high-wage establishments was significantly smaller

than that of male workers (table 15). Women were

more likely than men to work in large

establishments.

Many services industries allow more flexible work

hours than capital-intensive production industries

fl3). Flexible work hours permit some people to accept employment who would not be able to work

rigid work schedules. For example, flexible

schedules enable women to better balance the

duties of child care and other family responsibilities

with the demands of employment outside the home.

While females were more likely than males to work

part-time, results showed that females were not

significantly more likely to work in servicesproducing industries than males. No difference existed in the distribution of employed men and

women across any industry sector. Access to jobs

in new, growth, or no-growth establishments was

about the same for men and women.

Both women and men benefited from economic

growth as shown by their employment in new and

growth establishments. However, despite similar

levels of education and age, and similar access to

jobs in new and growth establishments, females did

not experience the same degree of success as males

in the labor market. Men more frequently got jobs

in higher salaried occupations. Women usually

worked in large establishments and low-wage

establishments, probably because of the large

numbers of women employed as clerks and

machine operators. The higher than average

unemployment rate for the area's women workers

may be a result of the low-skilled occupations they

held, which were more prone to layoffs during the

1981 recessionary period.

Youth and Older Workers

Youth, because of their low labor market skills and

limited work experience, encounter substantial

labor market difficulties (6, 18, 24}. Young persons

seeking employment, especially those still in school,

tend to have less mobility and more constraints on

the types of jobs they can hold than workers in

prime working years. Youth in many rural areas

have found jobs scarce, and where outmigration occurs, youth are typically the most likely to leave f9j.

Table 15—Selected characteristics of linked wage and

salary workers, by worker's sex, 1981

Item Total Male Female

idumber

All linked wage and salary

employees^ 55,870 27,65C\ 28,220

Establishment characteristics:

Wage category—

Low-wage

Mean-wage

High-wage

42.6

32.2

25.2

Percent

36.9 48.2

32.6 31.7

30.5 20.1

TypeGoods-producing

Services-producing

Government

35.8

36.7

27.5

37.2

38.1

24.7

34.3

35.3

30.4

SizeFewer than 20 paid employees

20 or more paid employees

30.2

69.8

36.6

63.4

24.1

75.9

Employment change, 1976-81:

New establishments

Growth establishments 2

No-growth establishments 2

10.7

57.7

31.6

10.7

53.8

35.5

10.7

61.4

27.9

iWage and salary workers sampled from the employment roils

of the sun/eyed establishments.

2Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

23
Schaub/Oliveira

When youth share in rural development employment gains, the gap between the unemployment

rates of youth and older w^orkers narrows and the

incentive for outmigration lessens. Age is not a

guarantee of labor market success, and older persons may not secure jobs resulting from economic

development because they do not have the

necessary formal education or may not possess

skills demanded by employers [17, 22, 24).

Like all nonmetro youth, those 16 to 24 years old in

the study area had a lower labor force participation

rate than prime-age persons, and youth had a

higher unemployment rate than workers 25 years

and over. Youth made up 20 percent of the adult

population and labor force but accounted for 47

percent of the unemployed (table 16). Lack of

schooling was not a factor in higher unemployment

rates for youths because their mean years of schooling were the same as the mean years of schooling

for prime-age workers and were actually higher

than the mean schooling of workers 50 years and

older. Inadequate job skills and little work experience caused unemployment among the area's

youth.

The proportion of youths employed in technical,

service, and sales occupations was larger than the

proportion for prime-age workers (table 16). Executive and professional jobs were relatively infrequent for youth, causing lower average weekly

earnings for youths compared with prime-age and

older workers. Within all the broad occupational

groups reported, youth tended to work in the lower

paying occupations of the groups.

Young labor force participants were not as successful as other workers in obtaining jobs, and the

jobs they got didn't pay as well. Self-employment

appeared to be an option for older persons but not

for youth who not only lacked experience but

generally had little access to capital for starting a

business.

The Unk analysis in table 17 shows that young

workers did not have the same access to certain

types of establishments as prime-age and older

workers. A disproportionately large number of

youths worked in low-wage establishments, and a

relatively small number worked in high-wage

establishments. Youth seldom had access to governTable 16—Selected characteristfcs of workers, by age,

January 1982

Item Total

Age

16 to 24 25 to 49 50 years

years years and over

Number

Total adult population 151,120 31,210 69,250 50,660

Percent

Labor force

participation rate

Employment rate

Unemployment rate^

59.6

54.7

8.5

55.6

44.1

20.7

78.9

74.2

6.0

35.8

34.3

4.1'»

Number

Employed persons 82,470 13,760 51,350 17,360

Percent

Residency status:

Long-term

residents

Early inmigrants

Recent

inmigrants

71.7

12.3

16.0

82.6

.44

17.0

64.1

16.9

19.0

85.3

8.5

6.2

Wage workers

working:

Full-time2

Part-time

81.0

9.4

76.3

17.7

87.4

4.5

65.8

17.2

Self-employed

workers 9.6 6.0 8.1 17.0

Major occupation:

Executive,

administrative,

managerial,

professional

Technical,

marketing,

sales,

clerical, service

Production and

related

occupations

15.0

47.7

37.3

8.1

52.9

39.0

17.0

44.0

39.0

14.3

54.6

31.1

Years

Average age

Average education

38.1

11.8

21.3

12.2

35.7

12.2

58.4

10.2

Dollars

Average weekly

earnings, 19813 238 179 251 239

1 Percentage of the labor force unemployed.

^Worked 30 or more hours per week.

3Based on earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

24
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

ment jobs, but they appeared to have access to jobs

in new establishments, growth establishments, and

no-growth establishments. Youth found jobs in

small establishments at a greater rate than did

workers age 25 to 49 years.

Even in this rapidly growing area, youth had difficulty in the labor market but they were not excluded from jobs in new and growth establishTable 17—Selected characteristics of linlced wage and

salary workers, by worlcers' age, 1981

Age

item Total

16 to 24 25 to 49 50 years

years years and over

NurTJher

All linked wage and

saiary employees^ 55.870 8,450 36,140 11,280

Establisliment

characteristics: Percent

Wage category—

Low-wage 42.6 53.9 41.3 38.4

IVIean-wage 32.2 26.5 31.8 37.6

High-wage 25.2 19.6 26.9 24.0

Type—

Goods-producing 35.8 41.4 35.8 31.4

Servicesproducing 36.7 44.4 35.5 34.8

Government 27.5 14.2 28.7 33.8

SizeFewer than 20

paid employees 30.2 37.4 28.0 32.1

20 or more paid

employees 69.8 62.6 72.0 67.9

Employment

change, 1976-81:

New

estabtishments 10.7 17.3 9.7 9.0

Growth

estabiishments2 57.7 51.7 62.0 48.2

No-growth

establishments^ 31.6 31.0 28.3 42.8

iWage and salary workers sampled from the employment rolls

of the surveyed establishments.

^Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

ments. Public sector establishments didn't employ

many youth; these young workers tended to be in

low-wage occupations and in low-wage establishments. Most workers under 25 years old will probably follow the pattern of workers 25 years old and

over as they mature and accumulate experience

that will enable them to move into higher wage occupations and establishments.

Older adults' labor force participation rate was low

compared with the rates for youth and prime-age

workers, but their unemployment rate was also low,

similar to all nonmetro areas (table 16). Older

workers had an average 2 years less schooling than

youth and prime-age workers, but older workers

received average weekly wages significantly higher

than wages received by youth. Older persons' earnings were not statistically different from wages

received by prime-age workers. Older workers more

likely had executive and professional jobs than

workers age 16 to 24 years old.

The older linked workers remarkably resembled

prime-age workers in the characteristics of their

employing estabhshments (table 17). No significant

differences were found in employer's wage levels,

industry, or size. However, older workers more frequently worked in no-growth establishments, while

prime-age workers more frequently worked in

growth establishments. Older workers less frequently had jobs in low-wage establishments and worked

more frequently than youth in government. Despite

these differences by worker's age, no statistical

evidence showed that older workers had less access

to jobs in new or growing establishments than

anyone else. Nevertheless, people over 50 years of

age did not appear to participate in the growth

process to the extent that younger residents did.

Part of this was by choice because many of the

older residents chose to retire rather than remain in

the labor force.

Recent Entrants

One assumption of rural development policies is

that employment growth will improve the economic

well-being of those rural residents with little labor

force experience (3, 4, 8, 10, 11], Many public officials see jobs as a means to reduce dependence on

public assistance while raising incomes and

enhancing tax revenues. Such thinking appears

25
Schaub/OHveîra

justified when nonworkers are able to move into

the work force. We found that employment growth

provided jobs for inexperienced workers in Georgia.

Twenty-four percent of those persons reporting at

least 1 week of employment in 1981 had not been

employed anytime in 1976 (table 18). We call these

22,730 workers recent entrants in the following

discussion.

Over half the recent entrants were youth making

the transition from student to worker. Sixty-two

percent of the recent entrants were women, and a

third of the women employed in 1981 had not

worked in 1976 compared with 17 percent of the

men.

Recent entrants were primarily wage and salary

workers; self-employment was almost entirely an

experienced worker status. A larger percentage of

recent entrants than experienced workers worked

part-time. Among full-time wage and salary

workers, recent entrants received significantly

lower wages. These lower weekly earnings resulted

in part from differences in occupations held by the

two groups. Recent entrants tended to be employed

in lower paying service, sales, and clerical jobs,

while experienced workers held higher paying construction, production, and professional jobs.

Large establishments provided the most jobs for recent entrants and experienced workers. However,

compared with experienced workers, recent entrants more likely worked in small, low-wage, or

service establishments (table 19). Government,

which tends to be a high-wage employer, provided

few jobs for recent entrants. Growth establishments

provided over half the employment for recent entrants; however, recent entrants also found positions in new and no-growth establishments.

Roles of Government ¡n Employment

Growth

Government makes an important contribution to

rural job creation because it adds to communities*

total employment and income levels. In all

nonmetro areas of the United States, government

accounted for 16.6 percent of employment in 1982

and 22 percent of the net employment growth between 1973 and 1982 [24, 35], Government is a

Table 18—Selected characteristics of recent entrants

and experienced workers, 1981

Employed in 1981 who

Total

\/vere~i

Item Not employed

Employed in 1976

in 1976 (recent entrants)

Number

Employed persons 93,390 70,660 22,730

Percent

Residency status:

Long-term residents 71.4 69.6 77.1

Inmigrants 28.6 30.4 22.9

Sex:

Male 54.9 60.4 37.8

Female 45.1 39.6 62.2

Race:

White 75.8 76.0 75.3

Black 24.2 24.0 24.7

Age:

16-24 years 19.4 7.0 57.8

25-34 years 29.0 31.4 21.9

35 years and older 51.6 61.6 20.3

Education:

Less than high

school 34.8 35.5 32.5

High school 38.8 37.0 44.4

Beyond high school 26.4 27.5 23.1

Wage workers working:

Full-îime2 79.9 80.7 77.4

Part-time 10.7 8.1 18.8

Self-employed 9.4 11.2 3.84

Major occupation:

Executive, administrative,

managerial,

professional 13.9 14.5 12.0

Technical,

marketing, sales.

clerical, services 48,6 46.4 55.3

Production and

related

occupations 37.5 39.1 32.7

Dollars

Average weekly

earnings, 19813 231 251 164

•Includes persons working 1 or more weeks some time in 1981.

^Worked 30 or more hours per week.

^Based on earnings of full-time wage and salary workers working 1 or more weeks in 1981.

'»Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

26
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

source of capital for private sector establishments

who begin operations and expand facilities. Federal

economic development programs for business

assistance of the Economic Development Administration, Farmers Home Administration, and

Small Business Administration made $2.5 billion in

grants and loans available to nonmetro areas in

1980 (16, 21). Government also provides job training

programs for the unemployed and others seeking

marketable skills, and through public employment

services, attempts to improve the efficiency of the

labor market by matching employers who have job

vacancies with job seekers.

Government was a major employer of the area's

residents, employing about 25 percent of all wage

and salary workers. Many area businesses,

however, did not use government grants, direct

loans, and guaranteed loans as a source of capital

for starting or expanding their operations. Most

establishments instead used retained earnings, sales

of stocks, and commercial loans. Less than 10 percent of the area's adult population participated in a

job training program. The least educated and

unemployed people received training at a lesser

rate than the more highly educated and employed

persons.

Government as an Employer

Governments added 2,350 new jobs between 1976

and 1981. The public sector provided many of the

area's higher paying professional and administrative jobs; nearly 50 percent of the government workers worked in high-wage units. The

linked data analyses showed that the proportions of

workers employed in government varied neither by

race nor sex. Inmigrants and workers over age 24

were more likely to be employed in government

than long-term residents and youth.

Government as a Source of Capital

One objective of this study is to determine the extent to which public sector funds expanded employment opportunities in the area. We asked private

sector establishments the following question regarding sources of funds:

*'Since January 1, 1970, were the following

sources of capital used to finance outlays

for land, building, or equipment when first

locating in the 10-county area, or for any

expansions that resulted in more persons

being employed by this unit?"

We followed this question with a list of sources, including public agencies, private sector financial institutions, savings or retained earnings, personal

Table 19—Labor force experience of workers, by

selected characteristics of industries in

which workers were employed, 1981

Item

All linked wage and

Total

Linked worker's

employment status

In 1981

Experienced

workers

Recent

entrants

Number

salary employees'" 55,870 45,130

Percent

10,740

Industry characteristics:

Wage categoryLow-wage 42.6 38.0 61.9

Mean-wage 32.2 34.9 20.7

High-wage 25.2 27.1 17.4

Type—

Goods-producing 35.8 36.2 33.9

Services-producing 36.7 34.9 44.0

Government 27.5 28.9 22.1

SizeFewer than 20

paid employees 30.2 28.8 36.5

20 or more paid

employees 69.8 71.2 63.5

Employment change,

1976-81:

New

establishments 10.7 8.7 18.8

Growth

establishments2 57.7 58.8 53.1

No-growth

establishments2 31.6 32.5 28.1

"Wage and salary workers sampled from the employment rolls

of the sun^eyed establishments.

2Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

27
Schaub/Oliveira

noncommercial loans, and corporate stocks. High

rates of use of public loans, grants, or guaranteed

loans would support the premise that public sector

funds are important in promoting rural development. Low rates of utilization, while not sufficient

to prove that public funds are unimportant to rural

development, would suggest that the role of government in providing direct capital is limited.

Only 6 percent of the respondents used a public

agency's direct or guaranteed loan during the

preceding 12 years to start or expand their

businesses (table 20). About half of all private sector

establishments used internal sources (retained earnings, savings, and sales of corporate stock). And,

half of the private sector establishments had used

external sources (private sector financial institution

loans and personal noncommercial borrowing).

Some establishments used more than one source.

We made no statistical tests for differences in the

use of public agency capital because too few

establishments reported using such sources. Use of

internal and external sources of capital appeared to

be unrelated to establishment wage level and size.

Goods-producing establishments reported using borrowed funds more often than services-producing

establishments. Publicly assisted capital may have

been a significant source of funds for a few

businesses, but overall, dependence on government

capital was small in the study area.

The data presented in table 20 do not address the

other ways in which government outlays can encourage establishments to start up or expand.

Public outlays for capital projects are important

contributions to the infrastructure which supports

and encourages commerce in nonmetro areas.

Transportation facilities, including highways and

Table 20-—Distribution of private sector establishments by sources of capital, January 1970 to December 1981

Establishments

Sources of capital

Private sector

establishments

Retained earnings,

savings, or sale

of corporate stock

Private sector

or personal

loans

Public agencies

Number Percent

All establishments 5300 47 56 6

Establishment wage category:

Low-wage

Mean-wage

High-wage

No full-time employees

2,560

670

860

1,710

44

47

43

52

63

64

50

45

72

82

9

32

Type of industry:

Goods-producing

Services-producing

960

4.840

57

45

76

52

8

5

Size of Industry:

Fewer than 20 paid employees

20 or more paid employees

5,290

510

47

46

55

61

5

11

Single establishments 4,800 48 58 6

Multiestablishments 1.000 46 53 42

^Private sources of capital include banks and savings and loan institutions. Public sources of capital include loan guarantees or capital

borrowed directly from such public agencies as the Small Business Administration, Farmers Home Administration, Economic Development

Administration, or through State or local bond issues. An establishment may have used more than one source. Thus, the percentages may

not add to 100.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

28
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

airports, water delivery systems, and waste treatment plants, were vital capital projects associated

with development in the study area.

Employment Services and Training

Government, among its other activities in economic

development, also provides job training programs

and employment services for unemployed, lowskilled, inexperienced, and displaced workers. In

1981, less than 2 percent of the establishments

surveyed reported that they had workers whose

wages were paid or supplemented by CETA or

other Federal and State employment programs.

That figure was not substantially different from the

one reported by establishments for 1976, although

between 1976 and 1981, the number of subsidized

employees virtually doubled to 1,100. In January

1982, among the population 16 years old and over,

8.7 percent had participated in job training programs, whether sponsored by CETA, vocational

schools, or other organizations (table 21). Participants in job training programs were more likely

than nonparticipants to be men, young (under age

35], high school graduates, and recent inmigrants.

Most participants in job training were employed in

January 1982.

Women, older people, and long-term residents did

not participate in job training programs in numbers

that matched their share of the adult population.

This situation also existed for those with less than a

full high school education. People with 0 to 11

years of schooling made up only 17 percent of job

training participants but were almost half of all

nonparticipants. On the other hand, the training

programs did appear to be reaching racial

minorities because about one-fourth of both trainees

and nontrainees were blacks.

The most frequently reported institution where job

training took place was the public vocational

school, followed by government agencies and colleges. About 70 percent of all participants completed their training, and two-thirds of these said

their training resulted in obtaining a job or promotion. When type of training is considered by broad

occupational categories, the occupations most

represented were mechanics/repairers, sales/clerical,

service, and professional/technical (table 21].

Table 21—Selected characteristics of participants and

nonparticipants in job training programs,

January 1982^

Participants

Item in job Nonparticipants

training in job training

Number

Adult population 13,220 137,900

Percent

Sex:

Male 54.3 44.1

Female 45.7 55.9

Race:

White 74.1 71.5

Black 25.9 28.5

Age:

16-24 years 33.1 19.5

25-34 years 31.1 20.9

35 years and older 35.8 59.6

Education:

Less than high school 17.4 49.0

High school 52.2 30.9

Beyond high school 30.4 20.1

Residency status:

Long-term residents 57.1 78.1

Early inmigrants 13.9 9.5

Recent inmigrants 29.0 12.4

Employment status:

Employed 78.5 52.3

Unemployed 6.7 4.9

Out of labor force 14.8 42.8

Occupation trained for:

Executive 6.1 —

Professional and technical 20.5 —

Sales and clerical 21.5 —

Service 20.9 —

Construction, transportation, and equipment

operators 6.4 —

Mechanics, repairers, and

production workers 21.6 —

Laborers and military 3.02 —

— = not applicable.

11ncludes job training received in high school, college, public

vocational school, private professional or occupational school, the

military, private firms, and the government. Excludes informal onthe-job instructions or courses taken at elementary and high

school or college for the purpose of completing graduation

requirements.

2Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

29
Schaub/Oliveira

The occupations for which most trainees prepared

corresponded with the occupations employers indicated they had difficulty in filling. About onethird of all employers reported they had difficulty

in finding qualified persons to fill positions (table

22). The hardest positions to fill were

mechanics/repairers, professional, service, and

sales. Although these occupations corresponded

very closely to the occupations for which most

training took place, the great majority of employers

who reported trouble finding qualified people cited

lack of training or skills as the reason for their

problem.

The percentage of establishments reporting difficulty in finding qualified workers varied by

establishment characteristics (table 22). Fewer lov^-

wage, services-producing, small, and new

establishments reported difficulty finding qualified

workers than mean- and high-wage establishments,

goods-producing establishments, large establishments, and growth establishments. The key factor

explaining reports of difficulty in finding qualified

workers was the occupations demanded by the

establishments. Services establishments, which also

tended to be small- and low-wage, employed lowskilled workers who were apparently easier to find

than more specialized high-skilled workers.

Use of State employment agencies by

establishments seeking workers and by people looking for jobs was limited compared with the

numbers of employers and workers who used more

informal search methods (table 23). Twenty-two percent of establishments actually hiring workers in

1981 used State employment agencies in their

search. Workers hired since 1976 reported even less

use of State employment agencies, just 5 percent.

But, 47 percent of the currently unemployed adults

reported that State employment agencies helped

them search for work. However, unemployment insurance recipients must register with the public

employment service, which may partially explain

why so many cited the State agencies. Public

employment services may be important contacts for

some employers and job seekers, but walk-ins and

referrals most frequently and successfully matched

workers to jobs.

Table 22—Establishments reporting difficulty in finding

qualified persons, by establishment

characteristics, 1981

Percentage of

establishments

Item Total with difficulty

establishments in finding

qualified workers

Number Percent

Establishments

with one or more

employees^ 4,790 35.7

Establishment

wage eategories:

Low-wage 2,600 33.1

Mean-wage 710 47.9

High-wage 920 47.8

No full-time

employees 560 12.53

Type of

establishment:

Goodsproducing 860 50.0

Servicesproducing 3,780 31.8

Government 150 53.3

Size of

establishment:

Fewer than 20

paid

employees 4,210 31.1

20 or more

paid

employees 580 69.0

Employment

change,

1976-81:

New

establishments 1,410 29.8

Growth

establishments^ 1,440 50.7

No-growth

establishments^ 1,940 28.9

1 Represents establishments with one or more employees.

Establishments operated solely by self-empJoyed owners or partners are excluded from this table.

^Represents private and public ongoing establishments.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

30
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

Potential Uibor Force

The 10-county area contained a large potential

labor force to support future job expansion. Potential workers are people who might accept employment if it were made available but were

unemployed or out of the labor force at the time of

the survey. If these people all found jobs, total

employment would increase 14 percent. The survey

data do not permit a detailed analysis of the

qualifications of these potential workers for specific

occupations, but we did analyze some potential

worker characteristics and reasons why these people did not work.

At the time of the survey, almost 69,000 adults

were not employed (table 24). About 11 percent

(7,640) of them were unemployed individuals seeking work and available for immediate employment.

Nearly one-half of the unemployed were less than

25 years old, and very few were 55 years old and

over. Nearly 60 percent had less than a high school

education, although some were still in school. The

unemployed had completed, on average, 10.4 years

of school, which was only slightly below the

average for the area's entire population. Women

and blacks constituted the majority of the

unemployed in proportions considerably higher

than their proportions in the general population.

Table 23—Methods used by establishments to locate

employees and methods used by employees

to find jobs

Establishments Workers starting

Item reporting hires

in 19811

jobs since 19762

Number

Establishments

and workers 2,980 45,540

Percent

Methods used to

locate workers

or ]obs:3

State employment

agencies 21.6 4.6

Waik-ins 52.4 55.5

Local or

national

ads 17.8 4.2

Referrals^ 64.5 25.6

Other

sources^ 22.3 18.4

1 Fifty percent of the new and ongoing establishments with one

or more paid employees had new hires in 1981.

2Data were not obtained from persons who were employed in

their current primary job prior to 1976.

^Because some establishments and persons used more than

one source, percentages will not sum to 100.

^Includes referrals by friends, relatives, and other

establishments.

sjncludes vocational schools, unions, colleges or universities,

private employment agencies, and other sources not already

identified.

Of all those not employed at the time of the survey,

about 61,000 were out of the labor force, not actively seeking work. Just over one-quarter of these individuals, about 17,230, had worked some time during 1976-81 but had left their last employment an

average 2.1 years ago. The large majority of this

group were female and white. Over half had not

completed high school, and almost 40 percent were

55 years old or over. When asked why they didn't

seek work, 60 percent of those with recent work experience said they were not interested in paid

employment, and about 30 percent said they could

not work because of ill health (table 25). The remainder were potential labor force participants;

they included discouraged workers, that is, they

believed jobs were unavailable and had stopped

looking, and persons interested in paid employment

but unable to work because of family responsibilities or inadequate transportation. The survey

data showed that disproportionate numbers of

blacks and young people were among discouraged

workers, perhaps reflecting the special difficulties

minorities and youth had in finding jobs.

About 40 percent of the individuals outside the

labor force worked prior to January 1976 but not

since then. This group was composed primarily of

older persons, especially retirees, whose average

age was 64.1 years. Again, the large majority were

female, white, and had finished less than 12 years

of school (table 24). Most said that they were not

interested in paid employment, and substantial

numbers could not work because of poor health, an

expected result for a group made up mostly of

older and retired persons (table 25). This group contained only a few potential labor force participants.

31
Schaub/Oliveira

One-third of those not in the labor force had never

been employed. More than one-half of these people

were under 25 years old. A large proportion of the

group with no labor force experience was young,

still enrolled in high school or college, and had not

yet entered the labor market. Most people in this

group said they were simply not interested in paid

employment, but about 1,000 said they were either

discouraged workers or interested in paid employment but couldn't work because of other

responsibilities.

The 10-county area contained about 11,000

residents at the time of the survey who were either

unemployed, discouraged workers, or reported being interested in paid employment but unable to

work because of family responsibilities or lack of

transportation. Taken together, these groups constituted the primary pool for the potential labor

force. Their numbers amounted to about 14 percent

of the total employed residents in January 1982.

Seventy percent of them had previous work

experience.

Table 24—Adult population, 16 years and older, not employed In January 1982, by previous work experience

Persons not employed

Total Unemployed

Not in labor force

Characteristic Worked some time between

January 1976 and January

19821

Worked prior to

January 1976^

Never employed

Number

Adult population 68.650 7,640 17,230

Percent

24,080 19,700

Male

Female

30.8

69.2

37.5

62.5

30.4

69.6

33.7

66.3

24.9

75.1

White

Black

65.5

34.5

47.0

53.0

71.5

28.5

69.6

30.4

62.5

37.5

Age in 1981:

16-24 years

25-54 years

55 years and over

25.4

28.7

45.9

47.1

45.6

7.33

21.4

40.3

38.3

0

22.0

78.0

51.7

19.9

28.4

Education:

Less than high school

High school

Beyond high school

Average age

Average years of school

completed

Average length of time

since last worked

62.3 56.6

24.3 37.0

13.4 6.43

47,3 29.8

9.6 10.4

2

53.4

25.8

20.8

43.9

10.4

2.1

Years

66.3 67.3

18.1 25.4

15.6 7.3

64.1 36.4

9.0 9.6

14.6

— = not applicable.

11ncludes persons who worked 1 or more weeks for pay or were self-employed.

^Average not shown because the unemployed included 1,268 persons who had never worked; 81 percent of the unemployed workers

had worked since January 1978.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

32
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

A substantial number of adults who were not work=

ing in January 1981 could have immediately entered

the area's work force and supported additional job

growth. They could have satisfied a portion of industry's labor demand but probably not total demand. They were reasonably well educated but

lacked experience needed to fill managerial and

skilled service jobs. In the short run, inmigrants

and experienced workers already in the area's labor

force were the primary source of workers for these

jobs.

Conclusions

Our Georgia findings substantially agreed with the

results from EDO's earlier study of employment

growth in nine Kentucky counties. Both studies

strongly support the following conclusions about

rural economic growth. AU population groups

studied can acquire growth-related jobs, but inmigrants, whites, men, persons over 24 years, and

experienced workers obtain better paying jobs than

long-term residents, blacks (data on blacks were not

available in Kentucky], women, youth, and recent

entrants. Ongoing establishments are important

sources of new jobs, especially high-wage jobs.

And, at least in rapidly growing areas, few

establishments require public-sector capital to start

or expand operations.

Rural development strategies that promote job creation appear to succeed in reaching all segments of

the population. Yet, both studies showed some

groups still experienced higher unemployment rates

and received lower wages than others. It is not

reasonable to expect employment growth to remove

all labor force and employment differences within

the population. Even if job growth promotes equality in employment outcomes, the period considered

in our studies was too brief to expect such a result.

Table 25—Reasons given for not looking for work by tiie aduit population, 16 years and older, by previous work

experience

Persons not in the labor force, January 1982

Total

Previous work experience

Item

Worked sometime

between January

1976 and

January 1982^

Worked prior

to January

19761

Never

employed

Number

Adult population 61,010 17,230 24,080

Percent

19,700

Discouraged worker^ 4.0 8.0 1.04 4.24

III health 29.7 28.3 39.9 18.4

Not interested in paid

ennployment 64.5 60.1 58.2 76.0

Interested in paid

employment but could

not works 1.8 3.64 .94 1.44

11ncludes persons who worked 1 or more weeks for pay or were self-employed.

^Includes persons who had stopped looking for work because they believed none was available.

^Includes persons who were interested in paid employment, but had to care for a child, or sick or aged adult, or did not have transportation to and from a work place.

^Estimate based on fewer than 10 unweighted observations.

33
Schaub/OIiveira

This suggests that rural development policy should

include human capital development programs to

complement job creation programs. Rural planners

should also consider the diversity and quality of

jobs created and not just the quantity of jobs.

Where should rural development strategists look for

new jobs? Large establishments seem to be more efficient in creating jobs than small establishments,

so efforts aimed at attracting large employers into

the area and efforts supporting expansion by large

employers are justified. New establishments clearly

are a fruitful source of jobs, but ongoing establishments should not be neglected in rural development

strategies. Such ongoing firms typically pay higher

average weekly wages than new businesses. Rural

communities can also attract high-wage jobs by

hosting government offices, particularly regional

headquarters, colleges, and medical facilities. These

operations have direct income impacts, benefit

residents by the proximity of their services, and

may enhance the area's attractiveness to potential

private sector employers.

Future reports by the Agriculture and Rural

Economics Division (formerly the Economic

Development Division) will give a more complete

understanding of rural economic growth. Work is

in progress analyzing the income effects of growth,

especially the effects on poverty populations and

utilization of public assistance and related programs in the Kentucky and Georgia areas. Our third

growth study in Missouri-Arkansas addresses

distributional issues in a retirement- and recreationbased economy.

References

1. Armington, C, and M, Odie. Sources of

Employment Growth, 1978-80. Business

Microdata Project, Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution, 1982.

2. Beale, C. "A Further Look at Nonmetropolitan

Population Growth Since 1970," American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 58, No. 5.

Dec. 1976, pp. 953-958.

3. Bender, L., B. Green, and R. Campbell.

* Trickle-down and Leakage in the War on

Poverty," Growth and Change. Vol. 2, No. 4.

Oct. 1971, pp. 34-41.

4. Bieker, R.F, "Can Private SectorJobs Reduce

Welfare Dependency?," Growth and Change.

Vol. 13, No. 2. Apr. 1982, pp. 2-9.

5. Birch, D. The Job Generation Process/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change, Report prepared for

the Economic Development Administration,

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Cambridge, Mass.:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1979,

6. Bowers, N. ^'Tracking Youth Joblessness: Persistent or Fleeting?," Monthly Labor Review.

Vol. 105, No. 2. Feb. 1982, pp. 3-15.

7. Bradshaw, T., and E. Blakely. Resources of Recent Migrants to Rural Areas for Economic

Development: Policy Implications. Univ. of

California, Berkeley, Div. Agr. Sei. Sept. 1981.

8. Briggs, V.M., and B. Rungeling. "Economic

Development: A Poverty Solution for The Rural

South?," Growth and Change. Vol. 11, No. 4.

Oct. 1980, pp. 31-35.

9. Daberkow, S.G., D.K. Larson, R. Coltrane, and

T.A. Carlin. Distribution of Employment Growth

in Nine Kentucky Counties: A Case Study.

RDRR-41. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res, Serv.,

Aug. 1984, 35 pp.

10. Gray, I. "Employment Effect of a New Industry

in a Rural Area," Monthly Labor Review. Vol.

92, No. 6. June 1969, pp. 26-30.

11. Hansen, N. "Policies for Nonmetropolitan

Areas," Growth and Change. Vol. 11, No. 2.

Apr. 1980, pp. 7-13.

12. Hedges, J.N., and E.F. Mellor. "Weekly and

Hourly Earnings of U.S. Workers, 1967-78,"

Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 102, No. 8. Aug.

1979, pp. 31-41.

13. King, A.G. "Industrial Structure, the Flexibility

of Working Hours, and Women's Labor Force

Participation," Review of Economics and

Statistics. Vol. 60, No. 3. Aug. 1978, pp.

399-407.

34
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties.

14. Kish, L. Survey Sampling. New York: John

Wiley and Sons, 1965.

15. Kuehn J., L. Bender, B. Green, and H. Hoover.

Impact of job Development in Four Developing

Areas. AER-225. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res.

Serv., 1972.

16. Miller, J.P. Inierstate Competition for Business:

Changing Roles of Federal and State Initiatives.

ERS Staff Report No. AGES831012. U.S. Dept.

Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., 1983.

17. Morrison, M.H. 'The Aging of the U.S. Population: Human Resource Implications,"

Monthly Lahor Review. Vol. 106, No. 5. May

1983, pp. 13-19.

18. Nilsen, S.R. Nonmetro Youth in the Lahor Force.

RDRR-27. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. Serv.,

1981.

19. Olsen, D., and J. Kuehn, Migrant Response to

Industrialization in Four Rural Areas, 1965-1970.

AER-270. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.,

1974.

20. Perkinson, L. *'Rural In-Migration: Are

Migrants Universally Disadvantaged?," Growth

and Change. Vol. II, No. 3. Jul. 1980, pp. 17-25.

21. Reid, J.N., and E. Whitehead. Federal Funds in

1980: Geographic Distribution and Recent

Trends. ERS Staff Report No. AGES820927.

U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Apr. 1982.

22. Rones, P.L. 'The Labor Market Problems of

Older Workers," Monthly Labor Review. Vol.

106, No. 5. May 1983, pp. 3-12.

23. Rungeling, B., L.H. Smith, V.M. Briggs, and J.F.

Adams. Employmeni, Income, and Welfare in

the Rural South. New York: Praeger Publishers,

1977.

24. Schaub, J. The Nonmetro Lahor Force in the

Seventies. RDRR-33. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res.

Serv., 1981,

25. Schweke, W., and R. Friedman. 'The Debate

Over 'Who Generates Jobs?'," The Monthly

Review of Enterprise Development Strategies.

Vol. 1, No. 8. Feb. 1983, pp. 2-4.

26. Smith, J.P., and F.R. Welch. "Black-White Male

Wage Ratios: 1960-70," American Economic

Review. Vol. 67, No. 3. June 1977, pp. 323-338.

27. Smith, L.H., and B. Rungeling. Rural White

Poverty in the Mid-South. Univ. of Texas,

Austin, Center for the Study of Human

Resources, 1973.

28. Sofranko, A.J., and F.C. Fliegal. "Rural-to-Rural

Migrants: The Neglected Component of Rural

Population Growth," Growth and Change. Vol.

14, No. 2. Apr. 1983, pp. 42-49.

29. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. Household and Family Characteristics:

March 1981. Current Population Reports, Series

P-20, No. 371. 1982.

30.

31.

__, Bureau of the Census. Money Income

of Households, Families, and Persons in the

United States: 1981. Current Population Reports,

Series P-60, No. 137. 1983.

, Bureau of the Census. 1978 Census of

32.

Agriculture, State and County Data. Part 10,

Georgia, AC78-A-10. June 1981.

, Bureau of the Census. Unpublished

age data for 1980.

33. _, Bureau of the Census. Unpublished

education data for 1980.

34. _, Bureau of the Census. Unpublished

racial data for 1980.

35. _, Bureau of the Census. Unpublished

36.

data from Current Population Surveys, 1973-83.

, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

37.

Unpublished employment data for 1970, 1977,

1981.

, Office of Federal Statistical Policy

and Standards, in cooperation with Office of

Management and Budget. Standard Occupational Classification Manual. Oct. 1977.

35
Schaub/Oliveira

38. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Employment and Earnings. Vol. 29,

No. 4. Apr. 1982.

39. Walker, }.L. Economic Development and Black

Employment in the Nonmetropolitan South,

Univ. of Texas, Austin, Bureau of Business

Research, 1977.

Appendix A: Survey Design and

Procedures

ERS researchers designed the study, developed the

questionnaires, edited the data, and conducted the

analysis. SRS statisticians helped develop the

sample and survey materials. Enumerators from the

Athens, GA, SRS office collected the data.

A random stratified multiple-frame design was used

to survey employers and households. The establishment list frame included both private sector and

public sector employers.^^

We excluded military installations and churches

from the list frame. Private households that

employed servants or grounds keepers were not

considered establishments. We selected a sample of

establishments for interview which provided the

characteristics of employers. We selected a sample

of persons employed in the sample establishments

for interview in the household survey, which

became the list frame for the household sample and

the basis for the linked worker sample.

Area frames accounted for the incompleteness of

the list frames. We used the establishment area

frame to estimate establishments not included on

the list. The household area frame was used to collect data on those households whose members were

either all unemployed, out of the labor force, selfemployed, employed by establishments not on the

list, employed by establishments on the list that

refused to participate in the survey, or employed

outside the study area. We used the household area

frame to increase the number of black households

available for analysis by stratifying the area frame

to include an urban minority stratum.

"The list frame of establishments was constructed from

telephone directories, a State Employment Security list of

employers, and contact with local officials.

The establishment sample, stratified by Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) and by three size

groups as measured by the number of employees,

included six SIC groups: (1) mining and construction, (2) manufacturing, (3) transportation, communication, and public utilities; finance, insurance,

and real estate, (4) wholesale and retail trade, (5)

other services, including agricultural services, and

(6) government units. The three establishment size

groups were: 19 or fewer employees, 20 to 99

employees, and 100 or more employees {app. table

The employer size groups were not proportionately

distributed; thus, each employer size group was

sampled at a different rate to assure a representative sample. Private and public establishments

with 19 or fewer employees were sampled at the

rate of 1 in 10; units with 20 to 99 employees, at a

rate of 1 in 3; and all large establishments with 100

or more employees were enumerated. We anticipated that some list establishments selected for interview would refuse to participate in the study,

and we accounted for this in the a priori sampling

rates. Information collected from the establishments

included principal products or services provided;

total employment for 1976 and 1981; and employment characteristics, such as occupations of

workers, male and female workers, part-time and

full-time workers, and average wage and salary of

full-time workers.

Before ending the interview with a sampled list

frame establishment, the enumerator drew a random sample of employees from the establishment's

list of current employees. Each employee selected

from the list became part of the list frame for

households and was interviewed at home.

Enumerators collected information on household

composition, characteristics of household members,

employment status, employment in 1976, type of job

held by all household members 16 years of age and

older, residency status, and household income. The

establishment's identification, included on the

employees' questionnaires, assured linkage with the

unit's characteristics during data analysis.

The sampling rate of employees also varied by

establishment size. We sampled 1 in 4 employees in

establishments employing 19 or fewer employees; 1

36
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

in 18 employees in establishments with 20 to 99

employees; and 1 in 70 employees in establishments

with over 100 employees.

We stratified the supplemental area frame sample

for households and establishments into classes, or

strata, based on three land use patterns and the

concentration of minorities in the 10-county

Appendix table 1—List frame universe and sample of establishments, employees, household members, and

employer-employee link sample, by strata

Georgia site (app. table 2). The four strata were

urban, urban minority, suburban, and rural.

Blacks in the 10-county study area mainly lived in

cities and towns and generally resided within

definable boundaries in these urban areas. We

mapped these minority neighborhoods as a distinct

stratum from the balance of urban places to insure

Industry Establishments (primary Employee Employee household Employer-employee

and

size

Establishment

sample units) household

completion^

members completion, link sample

strata^ universe Completions Out of business^

ayü

over Employers Employees

Number

Mining and

construction:

Small 503 39 9 34 83 23 34

Medium 41 14 0 17 39 11 16

Large 7 6 0 9 20 5 9

Manufacturing:

Small 277 17 5 23 57 13 20

Medium 71 15 3 30 63 12 30

Large 47 28 1 65 158 19 62

TCPU and FIRE:^

Small 384 33 4 30 70 19 30

Medium 34 9 2 11 26 6 11

Large 3 3 0 6 16 3 6

Wholesale and

retail trade:

Small 1,548 127 14 121 271 77 120

Medium 125 39 0 52 112 32 52

Large 8 5 1 13 31 4 12

Other services:

Small 1,057 81 4 61 144 47 56

Medium 59 18 0 23 50 11 21

Large 25 22 1 98 220 21 99

Government:

Small 85 8 0 11 20 7 11

Medium 20 7 0 22 50 7 22

Large 14 14 0 40 89 11 40

Total 4,308 485 44 666 1,519 328 651

^Small, fewer than 20 employees; medium, 20-99, employees; and large, 100 or more employees,

^Establishments that were part of the sample but had terminated operation by the survey date.

3|n situations where a household had more than one member employed by a list frame employer, we adjusted the household expansion

factor to reflect the household's increased probability of being selected.

^TCPU is transportation, communication, and public utilities. FIRE is finance, insurance, and real estate.

37
Schaub/Oliveira

Appendix table 2—Area frame universe, sample segments, and completions for establishments and

households, by strata

Segment

universe

Segments

sampled

Establishments Households

Strata Segments with one or

more completions

Employer

completions

Segments with one

or more completions

Completions

HouseholdsHousehold members

16 years old

and over

Urban minority

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Total

1,103

1,532

1,714

3,948

8,297

Number

52 9 11 31 54 95

56 11 23 30 46 78

63 15 26 44 145 265

144 6 8 70 104 190

315 41 68 175 349 628

a final sample size of blacks adequate for analysis.

Two concerns were that the high unemployment of

blacks might limit list frame contacts and that the

spatial distribution of blacks was such that an area

frame not stratified by race could by chance fail to

pick up enough black households for statistically

reliable inferences. Each segment was a parcel of

land varying in size by stratum. Segments were

approximately city-block size in the urban and

urban minority strata. In the suburban stratum, the

segment covered about one-eighth of a square mile,

and the rural segments were about 1 square mile

each. We sampled the segments at a rate of 1 in 27

in the urban segments, 1 in 21 in the urban minority segments, 1 in 28 in the suburban segments, and

1 in 27 in the rural segments. The household sampling rate within the sampled segments was 1 in 4

in the urban minority stratum and 1 in 3 in all

other strata. Enumerators interviewed all

establishments not included on the list frame of

establishments that were found in the sampled

segments.

We divided the survey fieldwork into three phases.

Phase 1 identified households and establishments in

the area frame. The area frame sample was a twostage stratified cluster design, where the first stage

of samphng was the segment and the second stage

was the household or establishment. In phase 2, we

interviewed the selected list frame establishments

and obtained the employee list. Phase 3 required

screening area frame households and area frame

38

Appendix table 3- -Questionnaires completed by

establishments and households, by

sample frame

Questionnaires

Establishment Household completed for

question- question- household

Sample frame naires naires members 16

completed completed years old and

over

Number

Establishments:

Private

sector 502 — .—

List frame 434 — —

Area frame 68 — —

Public sector 51 — —

List frame 51 — —

Total

establishments 553 —- —

Households:

List frame — 666 1,519

Area frame — 349 628

Total

households — 1,015 2,147

— = not applicable,

establishments and interviewing qualifying

households and establishments. During phase 3,

enumerators also interviewed employees' households on lists obtained from employers during

phase 2. They collected data by personal interviews

^•'U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985-^90-920:20l8l~ERS
Employment Growth/10 Georgia Counties

conducted during December 1981 for establishments and January 1982 for households.

We edited the questionnaires from households and

employers to detect and correct omissions and inconsistencies, and deleted from the sample those

questionnaires with unverifiable data entries.

Respondents were recontacted for additional data

before a questionnaire was deleted, and in some

cases, missing data were estimated. We received

completed questionnaires from 502 private sector

establishments, 51 public sector units, and 1,015

households which contained 2,147 persons aged 16

and over (app. table 3).

Appendix B: Calculation of Variance

Statistics

The complexity of the survey design precluded using simple random sample formulas to calculate

certain variance statistics required to compute confidence intervals and test differences among means,

proportions, and totals. The following formulas approximate the variances required for statistical

testing.

We used the same formulas to calculate variances

for subclasses. In situations where the subclass size

was considerably less than the total number of

primary sample units or observations, the resulting

estimate may seriously underestimate the subclass

variance fl4j. Unless otherwise noted, we

performed no statistical testing unless the subclass

contained at least 30 observations.

For the variance of total estimates, the formula is:

V(Y) = 1 (l-yP^

h = l

^h = the primary sample unit sampling rate

for the hth stratum,

F^ = expansion factor for the hth stratum,

n\^ = the number of primary sample units in

the hth stratum, and

Yj^i = the variable to be estimated within the

ith primary sample unit and hth stratum

where:

i=l

For the variance of ratio means, the formula is:

V (R) = V (X) = J_ [ V (Y) + R2 V(X) -

\ X/ ,%2

2R COV (X, Y)]

X'

For the variance of a difference between two ratio

means or two totals, the formula is:

V (R-R') = V(R) + V(R') - 2 COV (R,R')

We assumed the covariance term to be zero in all

comparisons in the report. Although the clustering

aspect of the survey design may underestimate the

variance if the covariance term is not included, we

did not consider the bias serious fl4j.

39
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

1301 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-4788

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

USDA

PERMIT NO. G- 45

Stay ahead with the latest

market information—

Subscribe now to

Reports

Reports catalogue brings you, several

times a year, descriptive listings of

new publications from ERS.

To get on our free mailing list,

send your name and address to:

Reports, EMS Information, USDA

1301 New York Avenue, N. W.

Room 237

Washington, D. C. 20005-4788