WEATHERING LAYOFFS 

IN A SMALL COMMUNITY

CASE STUDIES OF

DISPLACED POTTERY

AND CARPET-MILL WORKERS

• VJune 1966

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Arthur M. Ross, Commissioner

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Bulletin No. 1516

WEATHERING LAYOFFS

IN A SMALL COMMUNITY

CASE STUDIES OF

DISPLACED POTTERY

AND CARPET-MILL WORKERS

m i

QSjj

JUNE 1966

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Arthur M. Ross, Commissioner

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U .S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 2 0 4 0 2 - Price 45 cents

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

The two studies reported in this bulletin were sponsored by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The first, covering 

the experience of workers laid off between 1957 and 1962 by 13 potteries 

in an area centered in East Liverpool, Ohio, was conducted by Professor 

David Levinson of the Department of Economics of Ohio University. 

The other, covering workers displaced from a large carpet mill in the 

Northeast in 1960-62, was made by Professor N. Arnold Tolies of the 

New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell 

University.

Originally the studies were conceived as guides to the kinds of problems 

that might confront employees of plants and industries that are severely 

affected by import competition, which had been cited as a major cause 

of declining employment in each case. However, conclusive evidence 

showing import competition as a major cause of unemployment was not 

found in either study. But to whatever causes the particular layoffs 

might properly be assigned—and causes not related to imports were discovered in each case, incidentally—the main emphasis was on the workers’ 

experience following layoff. It is this information which constitutes the 

material presented here.

Striking parallels in circumstances suggest that the findings may 

illuminate some of the special problems surrounding large-scale layoffs 

by factories in smaller, less urbanized communities.

In no area within the scope of either study did 1962 employment 

exceed 50,000, and in most instances it was less than half that amount. 

The local economy was generally dominated by manufacturing, of which 

the establishments in question had been important components. Unemployment typically was far above the prevailing national rate. In short, 

finding a job in such an economic situation might challenge even highly 

qualified workers.

Both groups in question, however, included unusually large proportions of older workers, workers with little education, and workers with 

few skills that would be readily marketable outside the industry in which 

they had been employed. In addition, they were firmly tied to the community where they had been employed, by extensive home ownership 

and long residence. Thus, it was to be expected that many of the laid-off 

workers would have great difficulty finding new jobs. They did. In fact, 

their layoff appears to have left them isolated both geographically and 

economically from the generally prosperous American society, many 

dropping out of the job market entirely.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A Case Study

The Post-Layoff Experience of Displaced Carpet-Mill

Workers

by N. Arnold Tolies

Report on a study by the New York State 

School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 

Cornell University, under a grant from the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics.

V

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Acknowledgments

This study was greatly facilitated by the cooperation of the American 

Carpet Institute, the management of the carpet mill which was selected, 

and the local of the Textile Workers Union of America which represented 

the workers involved in the layoff. The author is also indebted to the 

local office of the State Employment Service, and to leaders of the 

community where the mill was located. Special recognition is due Walter 

Hauck and Lewis Perl, who assisted the author professionally. Mr. Hauck, 

who was in 1963 a graduate student at the New York State School of 

Industrial and Labor Relations, supervised the field work, the coding of 

the schedules, and most of the machine tabulation, and also assisted in 

the preliminary analysis of the data. Mr. Perl, a graduate of the School, 

assisted the author during the summer of 1964 with some additional 

tabulations and final analysis of the data.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Summary _________________________________________________________________ 1

Background of the study_____________________________________________________ 2

Characteristics of the laid-off workers and the local economy--------------------------- 3

The area’s economy____________________________________________________ 3

The workers’ characteristics____________________________________________ 3

Employment experience_____________________________________________________ 5

Labor force status, April 1963___________________________________________ 6

Employment and unemployment since layoff-------------------------------------------- 7

Time elapsed before reemployment__________________________________ 7

Number and types of jobs obtained_________________________________ 9

Work history______________________________________________________ 10

Workers’ income after layoff-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

Current earnings position_______________________________________________ 13

Wage levels on post-layoff jobs__________________________________________ 14

Age and sex differentials_______________________________________________ 15

Average income after layoff_____________________________________________ 17

Unemployment benefits________________________________________________ 17

Workers’ adjustments to their post-layoff situation----------------------------------------- 18

Economic position prior to layoff________________________________________ 18

Major adjustments to loss of wage income_______________________________ 19

Social security benefits--------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

Wages of other family members_____________________________________ 20

Disposal of assets----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

Infrequently used methods of post-layoff adjustment--------------------------------- 21

Appendixes:

A. Methodology_______________________________________________________ 23

B. Worker Interview Schedule_________________________________________ 25

Tables:

1. Years of school completed by displaced carpet-mill workers, by sex,

April 1963 survey------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2. Labor force status of displaced carpet-mill workers, by age and sex,

April 1963 survey------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

3. Success and length of search for substantial job by displaced carpetmill workers, by age and sex, April 1963 survey-------------------- ------- 8

4. Educational differences in success and length of search for substantial

job by displaced carpet-mill workers, by sex, April 1963 survey_____ 9

5. Number of employers, kinds of jobs, and industries represented in postlayoff jobs of displaced carpet-mill workers, April 1963 survey------- 10

6. Age differences in work history of displaced carpet-mill workers

throughout post-layoff period, by sex, April 1963 survey___________ 10

7. Educational differences in work history of displaced carpet-mill workers throughout post-layoff period, by sex, April 1963 survey------------ 12

V ll

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents—Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

8. Age differences in percent of displaced carpet-mill workers with current jobs paying less, more, or same as carpet-mill jobs, by sex,

April 1963 survey------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

9. Educational differences in percent of displaced carpet-mill workers

with current jobs paying less, more, or same as carpet-mill job, by 

sex, April 1963 survey----------------------------------------------------------------- 14

10. Pre- and post-layoff wage levels of displaced carpet-mill workers,

April 1963 survey------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

11. Age differences in post-layoff wage levels of displaced carpet-mill workers, by sex, April 1963 survey------------------------------------------------------- 15

12. Educational differences in post-layoff wage levels of displaced carpetmill workers, by sex, April 1963 survey----------------------------------------- 16

13. Displaced carpet-mill workers’ post-layoff experience with unemployment insurance benefits, April 1963 survey________________________ 17

14. Sources of money income supplements to wages of displaced carpet-mill

workers during year before layoff, April 1963 survey______________ 18

15. Methods of meeting post-layoff living expenses used by displaced

carpet-mill workers, April 1963 survey---------------------------------------- 20

16. Withdrawal of savings by displaced carpet-mill workers following layoff, by size of net reduction, April 1963 survey____________________ 21

Chart. Displaced carpet-mill workers: Extent of unemployment following layoff, April 1963 survey-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Appendix table A -l. Timing of the 1960-62 layoffs of production workers at 

the surveyed carpet mill___________________________________________________ 23

viii

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Summary

In April 1963, at the time of the case study 

of carpet-mill workers who were laid off when 

the mill halved its employment between mid1960 and mid-1962, 1 of every 12 had ceased 

to look for work and 1 of 4 of those still in the 

labor force was unemployed. The unemployment rate among these workers was over 5 

times the national rate at the time. It was 2% 

times the rate prevailing even in the small, 

economically depressed northeastern community 

where the carpet mill was located.

The unfavorable employment situation of the 

carpet-mill workers, compared with other local 

workers, epitomizes problems confronting jobless workers in areas such as this. There were 

no other carpet mills within 150 miles of the 

community, and although manufacturing industries dominated its economy, few of them 

utilized skills of the kind these workers had 

acquired at the mill. Most of the workers were 

middle aged and older persons with comparatively little education or training that would 

equip them for other kinds of work. These 

characteristics were especially pronounced 

among the fairly small number of women in the 

group studied.

Moreover, many of the carpet-mill workers 

had spent most of their lives in the community, 

to which they were tied by extensive home 

ownership and, frequently, the local employment of a husband or wife. More than threefourths of them expressed unwillingness to accept a job beyond commuting distance of their 

homes, even if such a job should be offered.

Given these circumstances, the carpet workers’ employment situation in April 1963—bad 

as it was—was better than it had been during 

the post-layoff period as a whole. In the 10 to 

34 months which had elapsed since they had 

been laid off, one-fifth of the workers had never 

secured a full-time job that lasted as long as 3 

months. Among those who did find such employment, half did so within 6 months, but oneeighth of the group required a year or more. 

Altogether, the workers had spent an average 

of 19 months in the labor force following layoff 

and had been unemployed for 9 of these months 

— 45 percent of the time- Individual experience 

varied widely, however, ranging from no employment at all for 1 of every 8 to continuous 

employment during every week after layoff for 

1 of every 12. The least favorable records were 

those for women, persons of little schooling, and 

workers of relatively advanced age.

Nearly all of the reemployed workers had 

been forced to take up a different occupation 

and all were working in a different industry. 

Almost half had worked for at least 2 employers following their layoff.

Thus it is not surprising, particularly in an 

economically depressed area, that two-thirds of 

the reemployed were earning less at the time 

of the interview than they had made at the 

carpet mill, even though the current average 

wage was somewhat higher than earnings on 

the first post-layoff jobs. The average for 

all post-layoff employment was 7 percent below 

mill earnings.

Naturally these earnings data relate only to 

weeks in which the workers were employed. It 

appears that, for the reemployed group, the 

weekly income from wages, when spread over 

the entire period following layoff, was no more 

than 75 percent of the comparable figure for 

their last year at the mill. Even the addition of 

unemployment benefits— in many cases for an 

extended period— still left them in an inferior 

income position. And this takes no account of 

the 1 worker in 8 who had had no employment 

between the time he was laid off and April 

1963.

Yet, less than one-third of these workers had 

to resort to extreme means (heavy debts, sale of 

house, etc.) of adjusting to their reduced cir1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cumstances. Demonstrating their self-reliance 

and frugality, they depended chiefly on accumulated savings, despite the fact that the 

carpet workers’ average earnings during the 

last year at the mill had been only $3,150. For

the other two-thirds, their unemployment benefits and what wages they were able to earn, with 

the frequent supplement of a spouse’s earnings, 

sufficed for the family’s living expenses 

throughout the post-layoff period.

Background of the Study

In line with this study’s original objective of 

exploring the situation of displaced workers in 

an industry confronted with competition from 

imported goods, the establishment selected for 

study was a carpet mill whose principal product was (and is) Wilton carpets. The mill was 

thus in that part of the domestic industry which 

the U.S. Tariff Commission had found to be 

threatened by an increase in imports of Wilton 

and velvet carpets after 1958, when the last 

of a series of scheduled cuts in the tariff on 

these products became effective. It was also 

known in advance of the study to have experienced a severe decline in employment between 

1958 and mid-1962, when the tariff was restored 

to its 1939 level.

During the 2-year period ending in June 

1962, the mill’s shipments fell by over 35 percent, and it cut back its average monthly employment of production workers by 46 percent.1 

The largest single reduction in employment occurred in early 1962, when the mill closed its 

yarn spinning department, while continuing 

other operations. Otherwise, the mill’s employment fell gradually, but irregularly, during the 

2-year period. The number of workers separated from mill employment, however, was 

much larger than the 46-percent net reduction 

implies, for the mill had a relatively high proportion of intermittent employees, many of 

whom were hired and separated repeatedly during the period in question.

Since the scope of this study was confined to 

laid-off workers who were not likely to be rehired by the mill, the intermittent workers were 

to be excluded. This requirement was satisfied 

when the company provided its “reemployment 

roster” as of June 30, 1962. The roster, estab1 The longer (and unpublished) report on the study cautions 

that although increased import competition might, superficially, 

appear to have caused the mill’s layoffs, “ no such simple conclusion is warranted.” The material on which this finding is 

based has been omitted from the discussion of the workers’ experience following layoff.

lished under a hiring clause in the company’s 

agreement with the Textile Workers Union of 

America, listed former employees (excluding 

quits and discharges for cause) who had preference over new applicants for any vacancy in 

their former type of work- Employees were 

retained on the list for 2 years following layoff 

or the length of previous service, whichever 

was shorter. Thus, the roster automatically 

excluded short-service or temporary employees 

but did list all former employees with longer 

tenure who had been laid off between July 1, 

1960, and June 30,1962, and not rehired during 

that period. The 794 workers named in the 

list were considered to be displaced workers as 

defined for this study.

In addition, the company provided, from 

personnel records, information about the 794 

workers’ personal characteristics and skill level 

on their last job. This information furnished 

the controls for selecting a sample of 160 laidoff workers for interview. (See appendix A 

for further information on methodology.) It is 

also the basis for the data on age, sex, and 

marital status which are presented in the following section, together with a description of 

the economy of the mill community,2 as background for evaluating the subsequent material 

on the workers’ post-layoff experience.

The bulk of that material was obtained from 

the sample of 160 workers. The interview 

schedule (appendix B) called for information 

on the workers’ education and training, their 

job at the mill (which was supplemented by 

company data on their weekly and annual earnings), the effect of the layoff on their financial 

position and living arrangements, and their 

work and earnings history from the time of 

layoff to the time of the interview.

2 The data on age, sex, and material status relate to the entire 

group of 794 workers; the remainder of the data on personal 

characteristics were obtained from the 160 workers who were interviewed.

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Characteristics of the Laid-Off Workers and the Local Economy

The Area’s Economy

Between mid-1960 and mid-1962, when the 

carpet-mill workers in this study were being 

laid off, unemployment rates in the community 

where they worked ranged upward from 8% 

percent, as shown in the tabulation below, and 

rates of 13 percent or more were not unusual 

in the winter months. In fact, in the 3 years 

preceding the month in which these workers 

were interviewed, the unemployment rate did 

not drop below 7 percent. At the time of the 

interviews, it was over 10 percent. By comparison, the national unemployment rate moved 

within a range of 4^ -6 percent during these 

3 years- Thus, the economy of the carpet-mill 

city was depressed throughout the period when 

the laid-off workers were seeking alternative 

employment.

Registered unemployment as percent of civilian labor force

1960 1961 1962 1963

February ------------------------------ __ 14.5 13.5 11.3

April ________________________ 13.2 11.0 10.4

J u n e _________ ____ _ ------ 9.7 11.4 8.7 _____

August----------------------------------- 9.3 9.6 7.8 _____

O ctober_______ - — _ — 8.6 8.5 7.0 _____

D ecem ber------- ---------------------- 12.8 11.0 9.4 —

Source: Bimonthly data compiled by local office o f the State 

Employment Service.

The extent and nature of other job opportunities can be indicated only in a general way, 

because of the need to avoid disclosing the 

identity and location of the carpet mill. The 

city in which the mill is located is in the northeastern United States and had a 1960 population of less than 30,000. In the county surrounding the city, the relative distribution of 

employment as of mid-March 1962 was as follows:

Percent

Industry group of

employees

Total ________________________________________________ 100.0

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries----------------------------------- 0.1

Mining ____________________________________________________ (*)

Building construction -------------------------------------------------------- 3.6

Manufacturing ------------------------------------------------------------------ 65.4

Textile mill products--------------------------------------------------- 18.8

Apparel and related products-------------------------------------- 11.5

Paper and allied products------------------------------------------- 1.0

Printing and publishing --------------------------------------------- 2.4

Leather and leather products-------------------------------------- 3.4

All other m anufacturing--------------------------------------------- 26.8

Transportation and public utilities----------------------------------- 3.1

Wholesale tra d e ___________________________________________ 4.2

Retail trade --------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.9

Percent

Industry group of

employees

Finance, insurance, and real estate_______________________ 3.3

Services ___________________________________________________ 8.8

1 Number withheld in original source to avoid disclosure.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not 

equal totals.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

County Business Patterns, 1962 (Volume and page withheld to 

avoid disclosure).

The concentration of employment in manufacturing may be regarded as favorable to the 

reemployment of the production workers displaced from the carpet mill. The proportion in 

manufacturing was about double the national 

ratio. Although nearly one-fifth of the local 

employment was in textile industries, there was 

little local demand for labor in the carpet mill 

section of textiles. Apparel industries, which 

commanded about 1 employee of every 9 in the 

area, actually provided better employment opportunities for the former carpet-mill workers. 

But the presumably favorable distribution of 

employment should not cause one to lose sight 

of the fact that this was a small community 

where the loss of jobs by 800 workers, even 

spread over a 2-year period, could have a 

noticeable effect on the unemployment rate.

The Workers’ Characteristics

Job loss in such an area might be expected 

to prompt the unemployed to look elsewhere, 

but few of the characteristics of the laid-off 

carpet workers were consistent with this expectation. Indeed, more than 98 percent of the 

workers in the interview sample were still living in the area in April 1963, which was from 

10 to 34 months after the time they had been 

laid off. Their age, marital status educational 

level, home ownership and the employment of 

other family members all tended to tie this 

group quite firmly to the community.3 *

The laid-off carpet-mill workers were heavily 

concentrated in the older age groups. About 55 

percent of them were at least 45 years old, com3 As indicated in the preceding section (p. 2) the data on

age, sex, and marital status relate to the entire group of 794 

workers; the remainder of the data on personal characteristics 

were obtained from the 160 workers who were interviewed.

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pared with about 40 percent of the workers in 

the U.S. labor force in 1960-63. Moreover, as 

the following tabulation shows, none of the 

women and only a few of the men were under 

the age of 25.

Age in 1960 sexes Men Women

All ages: Number _________ _________ 794 556 238

Percent __________ _________ 100 100 100

14 to 19 years _______________-------------- (i) (*) __

20 to 24 vears _________ 2 2 __

25 to 84 years ______________ _________ 14 16 8

35 to 44 y ea rs_________ ___ _________ 30 30 30

45 to 54 y ears______________ _________ 41 35 53

55 to 54 y ears_______ _ ____ _ 13 16 8

65 to 69 years ______________ __________ 1 1 __

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not 

equal totals.

This age distribution was highly unfavorable 

to the reemployment opportunities of the 

carpet-mill workers.

The 70 to 30 ratio of men to women in the 

group studied was quite typical of the carpet 

industry and of the labor force as a whole. 

However, an unusually high proportion of both 

the men and women in the study were married. 

Almost three-fifths of the men and about onefourth of the women were married, whereas the 

comparable figures for the labor force in recent 

years have been about one-half and one-fifth. 

Much of the differences may be attributed to 

the concentration of the carpet workers in the 

age groups which have the largest proportions 

of married persons in the labor force.

The prevalence of married workers in the 

survey group helped to ease the loss of income 

following layoff, for exactly half of the 160 

interviewed workers reported a spouse’s earnings as a source of family income in the year 

preceding their layoff at the mill.4 This was an 

unusually high proportion, since only one-third 

of the married women in the United States are 

in the labor force. What made it even more 

unusual was the fact that only three-tenths of 

the interviewed workers, compared with fourtenths of U.S. families, had no minor children. 

Perhaps part of this difference too is attributable to the age distribution of the workers, 

which would suggest that many of the mothers 

might have returned to work when their children reached teenage.

4 Further information on the workers’ income is given on p. 13.

Another part of the explanation for the prevalence of two-earner families is undoubtedly 

to be found in the educational distribution of 

the former carpet-mill workers, in view of the 

established association between income and 

years of schooling.5 Whereas 52 percent of the 

men and 61 percent of the women in the labor 

force in March 1962 had completed 4 years of 

high school,6 the corresponding proportions of 

the laid-off carpet workers were 21 and 7. 

(See table 1.) Indeed, one-fifth of the carpet 

workers had had less than 8 years of formal 

schooling, and another three-tenths—the

largest single group—had completed just 8 

years. As usual among factory workers, the 

men had the higher educational level, with 

three-fifths of the women but less than half 

of the men having no more than an elementary 

school education. These proportions were half 

again as high as those recorded for white 

persons employed in blue-collar occupations in 

March 1964.7 Thus, scant education may well 

have put many of the carpet-mill workers at a 

disadvantage in seeking other factory work.

T a b l e 1. Y e a r s o f S c h o o l C o m p l e t e d b y D is p l a c e d

C a r p e t -M il l W o r k e r s , b y S e x , A p r il 1963 S u r v e y

Years of school completed

Both

sexes Men Women

Total: Number________________ 160 116 44

Percent_________________ 100 100 100

7 years or less_________________________ 19 20 18

8 years________________ _____________ 31 27 41

9 to 11 years__________________________ 31 80 34

12 years or more_______________________ 17 21 7

Not reported__________________________ 2 3

Although about two-fifths of the workers reported some formal job training either in addition to or in the course of their schooling, apparently it had limited current value. Only 12 

of the 67 workers who had taken such training 

said that it had helped them to get or hold any 

job following their layoff.

Infrequent use of their training may be associated with its source. Few had served an 

apprenticeship or attended a trade school or 

technical institute (less than 10 percent in 

either category)—training which tends to be

6 See, for example, Herman P. Miller, “ Income in Relation to 

Education,” American Economic Review, December 1960, pp. 963- 

985.

6 “ Educational Attainment of Workers, March 1964,” Monthly

Labor Review, May 1965, p. 518, also available as reprint 2463.

* Ibid, p. 523.

4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
widely used.8 Similarly, about one-fourth of 

the reported training had been taken in the 

Armed Forces—a type of training with restricted carryover value. Moreover, a like proportion of the training had been obtained in 

high school and was thus not likely to have 

been taken recently, in view of the study 

group’s age level. Generally, training of recent 

origin is most useful, and only in the clerical 

occupations (which were excluded from this 

survey) is high school training widely applied. 

It is apparent, then, that formal occupational 

training, despite its prevalence, provided no 

very substantial offset to the carpet workers’ 

educational disadvantages.

Their mobility in finding new employment 

was further restricted by a long history of 

stable residence and a high frequency of home 

ownership. Nearly one-half of the group interviewed had been bom in the city where the 

carpet mill was located, and more than threefourths had been born within the State. Moreover, all but 4 of the 160 persons had lived 

within 20 miles of the carpet mill for at least 

10 years before they were laid off, and over half 

of them had done so for at least 40 years, as 

shown below:

Length of residence in area 1 Distribution of workers

at time of layoff Number Percent

Total ------------------------------------------------ 160 100

60 to 64 y ea rs_____________________________ 5 3

50 to 59 y ears_____________________________ 34 21

40 to 49 y ea rs_____________________________ 49 31

30 to 39 y ears_____________________________ 30 19

20 to 29 y ea rs_____________________________ 14 9

10 to 19 years _____________________________ 24 15

8 See Formal Occupational Training of Adult Workers; Its E xtent, Nature and Use (U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower, Automation and Training), Manpower/Automation Research Monograph No. 2, 1964, tables 4 and 8.

Length of residence in area 1 Distribution of workers

at time of layoff Number Percent

Less than 10 y e a r s ________________________ 1 1

Not reported______________________________ 3 2

1 Within 20 miles of the carpet mill.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not 

equal totals.

Thus, the median length of residence in the 

area was equivalent to the median age of the 

group.

By the time of the interview 5 of the 166 

persons in the sample were living outside the 

20-mile area around the mill, and another 3 

failed to respond to the question regarding 

length of residence. Even if all eight of these 

were regarded as having moved outside the 

area, at least three-quarters of the group had 

continued to live within 20 miles of the carpet 

mill for 20 years or more. Only 1 person had 

moved after being laid off at the mill and he 

still lived in the area.

Stability of residence (as well as the smallness of the community) was reflected in a high 

rate of home ownership (57.5 percent), which 

served in turn to make the laid-off workers 

reluctant to move or to consider a job beyond 

commuting distance of their homes. Only 5 o f 

the 160 persons interviewed had been employed, 

and only 23 had looked for a job, outside the 

local area at any time after their layoff. Indeed, 

over three-fourths of the group (123) stated 

that they would be unwilling to accept a joboutside commuting distance even if such a job 

were offered. The most frequent reason (given 

by 33 persons) was home ownership. Another 

16 persons cited the local employment of a 

husband or wife. Those who were unwilling to 

consider moving to another area also included 

persons who were satisfactorily reemployed and 

a few who were no longer looking for paid employment.

Employment Experience

On all four measures of employment experience used in this study, the laid-off carpet-mill 

workers had a low score:

1. When they were interviewed in April 

1963, about 1 in 12 had left the labor force and

1 in 4 of those still in the labor force was unemployed.

2. Only three-fourths of the interviewed had 

secured any full-time job lasting at least 3 

months at any time since layoff, and one-quarter 

of these had taken at least 39 weeks to do so.

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3. Less than half were still on the first job 

they had gotten following layoff, and nearly 

one-fourth had worked for 3 or more employers.

4. Although the “ average” former carpet 

worker had been in the labor force (i.e., working or looking for work) in 19 of the 20 

months that had elapsed since layoff, he had 

been unemployed for 9 of these months, and 1 

of every 8 workers had had no employment at 

all, even a temporary of a part-time job.

On every count, the women’s experience was 

less favorable than the men’s. Similarly, the 

older workers generally had more difficulty than 

the younger and the workers with less schooling 

more than the better educated.

Labor Force Status, April 1963

In April 1963, the national unemployment 

rate for experienced wage and salary workers 

was 5.5 percent, and the rate in the area where 

the carpet mill is located was 10.4 percent. In 

sharp contrast, the rate for the former carpet 

workers, whether computed for all 160 who 

were interviewed or for the 146 who were in the 

labor force, approximated 25 percent (table 2).

Among the carpet workers, as among any 

group where long-term joblessness is prevalent,

the exact percentage who should be counted 

as unemployed on a given date is uncertain, 

especially when jobs are scarce and unemployment has been rising. The problem of determining how assiduously those who have been 

jobless for an extended period are seeking work 

is aggravated where, as here, they are members 

of families with other means of support (an 

employed member(s), a pension, etc.), are 

strongly attached to the area, or formerly 

were relatively high on the community wage 

scale. The problem here involved 8 of the 37 

currently unemployed workers; these 8 reported 

they had had no job at all since being laid off 

from the carpet mill. To assign all eight, or 

even the five who had been out of work for a 

year or more, to the group who had withdrawn 

from the labor force would, of course, reduce 

the unemployment rate, as a percentage of both 

the entire study group and those in the labor 

force. Even if one could defend such revisions 

against the charge that they equate lack of a 

job with lack of desire for one, they would not 

alter the conclusion to be drawn from the 

figures: the incidence of unemployment among 

the carpet-mill workers was at least three times 

that among the country’s experienced workers 

and at least twice that among local workers.

Table 2. Labor Force Status of Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers, by A ge and Sex, A pril 1963 Survey

Age and sex

Number Percent Percent of 

workers in 

labor force

Total

Employed

Unemployed

Not

in

labor

force

Total

Employed

Unemployed

Not

in

labor

Total Part- force

time

Fulltime

Total Parttime

Fulltime

EmployedUnemployed

Both Sexes

Total___________________ 160 109 3 106 37 114 100 68 2 66 23 9 75 25

19 to 38 years_________________ 39 38 1 37 1 100 97 3 95 3 97 3

39 to 54 years_________________ 96 59 1 58 30 7 100 61 1 60 31 7 66 34

55 to 69 years_________________ 25 12 1 11 6 7 100 48 4 44 24 28 67 33

Men

Total___________________ 116 89 3 86 17 10 100 76 3 74 15 9 84 16

19 to 38 years_________________ 33 33 1 32 100 97 3 95 3 97 3

39 to 54 years_________________ 63 45 1 44 14 4 100 71 2 70 22 6 76 24

55 to 69 years_________________ 20 11 1 10 3 6 100 55 5 50 15 30 79 21

Women

Total___________________ 44 20 20 20 4 100 45 45 45 9 50 50

19 to 38 years_________________ 6 5 5 1 100 83 83 17 83 17

39 to 54 years_________________ 33 14 14 16 3 100 42 42 48 9 47 53

55 to 69 years_________________ 5 1 1 3 1 100 20 20 60 20 25 75

1 Includes 6 “ unable to work,” 4 “ doing own housework,” and 4 who had retired.

Serious as unemployment was for the carpet u 

workers generally, it was even worse for the 1 

women in the group. As table 2 shows, women 

accounted for not quite three-tenths of the « 

workers interviewed, but for over half of the £

unemployed. In each of the three age groups— 

19 to 38, 39 to 54, and 55 to 69 9—for which

9 These three age groups are designed to give better representation of younger, middle-age, and older persons in the entire group of 

laid-off workers than use of the customary 10-year age classes would 

provide.

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
data are presented, unemployment was strikingly lower for the men. In the most numerous 

group— age 39 to 54—the women were unemployed twice as frequently as the men. The 

overall rate was three times as high for women 

as for men— 46 and 15 percent, respectively.

High unemployment and the nature of job opportunities in the area may help to explain why 

the women’s rates were so much higher than 

the men’s. Nationally, the 1963 rate for men 

aged 45-54, for example, was 3.6 percent; that 

for women of the same ages, 4.2.10 1 Among the 

comparable groups of carpet workers, the respective rates were 22.4 and 60.9.11

For the aforementioned reasons, the unemployment rates among the carpet workers may 

be somewhat overstated, especially for women. 

And a surprisingly small number of women 

reported themselves as having withdrawn from 

the labor force; indeed, the proportion was the 

same for women as for men (9 percent). The 

small numbers of younger and older women in 

the sample (although proportionate to the total 

number laid off) may make the data for women 

in these two age groups somewhat unreliable. 

But even in the larger middle-aged group, 

nearly half of the women said they were unemployed and still looking for work—a larger 

proportion than might have been expected in a 

group of married women who had lost their 

jobs from 10 to 34 months earlier.

The effects of advancing age on employment 

status at the time of interview are more clearcut for women than for men. The younger the 

woman, the more likely she was to be in the 

labor force and to be employed and the less 

likely to be unemployed. The proportion of 

women employed at the time of interview in the 

most numerous middle-age group was double 

that for the oldest women but only half that 

for the youngest group. The 45-percent average 

for the women was clearly dominated by the 

record of the intermediate group.

Among the men, however, although the 

youngest group also had the most favorable 

employment and unemployment experience, the 

relationship of the other two groups differed 

from the women’s pattern. Fewer of the oldest

10 See Manpotver Report of the President, March 1964, p. 200.

11 The 45-54 age group was the largest 10-year cohort studied

among both men and women, containing 49 men and 23 women 

who were in the labor force.

than of the middle-age men were unemployed. 

But this was due to their higher rate of labor 

force withdrawal, rather than to any greater 

success in finding jobs, for only 55 percent of 

the oldest men, compared with 71 percent of the 

middle group, were employed. Again, the experience of the dominant middle group weighed 

heavily in the overall employment rate of 76 

percent.

For all interviewed workers, men and women 

alike, the proportion employed was 68 percent. 

Taking just those in the labor force, the comparable figure was 75 percent, which represented 50 percent of the women and 84 percent of the men. Even if these percentages 

understate the extent of employment because 

the labor force should exclude a few workers 

here counted as unemployed, they clearly support the expectation, advanced in the preceding 

section, that the carpet-mill workers would have 

great difficulty in finding new jobs.

Employment and Unemployment Since Layoff

It is also apparent that the carpet workers’ 

employment difficulties were persistent and prolonged, as well as prevalent. The evidence is 

found in data on the length of time required to 

get a new job, the number and types of jobs 

held since layoff, and labor force status 

throughout the period between layoff and interview.

Time Elapsed Before Reemployment. Although 

only 109 of the 160 carpet workers were at 

work in April 1963, as table 2 showed, 138— 

or 86 percent of the total—had obtained some 

kind of employment at some time between layoff and interview. (See table 3.) Fourteen of 

these, however, had never had a “substantial” 

job, that is, a full-time job for pay on which 

they had been continuously employed for 3 

months or more.12

12 The purpose of this definition was to obtain a stable measure 

which would reveal the extent to which the workers lacked regular 

employment and income throughout the post-layoff period (which, 

incidentally, had a minimum span of nearly 10 months—from June 

1962 when the last layoffs occurred to April 1963 when the workers 

were interviewed. The definition sought to exclude employment at 

temporary, odd jobs that might have been obtained at random, as 

well as employment at jobs that soon proved, contrary to the 

worker’s expectations, to be temporary or unsatisfactory. The 

specification of a 3-month period had the further merit of avoiding 

subjective definitions of “ substantial” by either interviewer or 

respondent, of being independent of the amount earned on a job, 

and of exceeding the probable duration of probationary service on 

any jobs which this group of workers might be expected to obtain.

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Success and Length of Search for Substantial Job 1 by Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers by A ge

and Sex, April 1963 Survey

Success and length 

of search

Both sexes Men Women

All

ages

19 to 38 

years

39 to 54 

years

55 to 69 

years

All

ages

19 to 38 

years

39 to 54 

years

55 to 69 

years

All

ages

19 to 38 

years

39 to 54 

years

55 to 69 

years

All workers_________________ 160 39 96 25 116 33 63 20 44 6 33 5

No substantial job from layoff to 

April 1963______________________ 36 4 20 12 16 8 8 20 4 12 4

Withdrawn from labor force___ 14 7 7 10 4 6 4 3 1

In labor force but no job to 

April 1963............................... 8 6 2 4 2 2 4 4

Employed at some time between layoff and April 1963, 

but lfo substantial job 14 4 7 3 2 2 12 4 5 3

Obtained substantial job by April 

1963......... ........................................ 124 35 76 13 100 33 55 12 24 2 21 1

Average number of weeks from layoff to first substantial job________ 28.1 27.2 31.3 33.5 27.2 26.7 30.2 33.8 31.4 34.5 34.4 30.0

1A job providing continuous, full-time employment for 3 months or more.

For the 124 who were reemployed on a substantial job, the length of time required to find 

that job ranged from less than 1 week for 10 

workers to 112 weeks for 1 worker (not shown 

separately in table 3). One-fourth of the workers found substantial jobs within 3 months; at 

the other extreme, nearly one-fourth required 9 

months or more, and one-eighth 1 year or more, 

as shown in the following tabulation:

Length of search for first

substantial jo b 1 Number Percent

Total finding substantial j o b -------------- 124 100

Less than 1 w e e k __________________________ 10 8

1 to 13 w eeks________________________________ 31 25

14 to 26 w eeks________________________________ 30 25

27 to 39 w eeks________________________________ 24 19

40 to 52 w eek s________________________________ 13 10

53 to 112 w eeks____________________________ 16 13

1 A job providing continuous, full-time employment for 3 months 

or more.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not 

equal totals.

The median duration of their job search was 6 

months. Unfortunately, no comparative national data are available to evaluate whether 

these periods of time were usual or unusual.

Women in every age bracket were less successful than men in finding a substantial job; 

45 percent of all the women but only 14 percent 

o f the men never obtained such a job. The proportion of men who were successful rose with 

age, but nearly twice as many of the youngest 

as of the middle-age group of women did not 

find reemployment in this sense. The figure for 

the youngest women reflects too few observations to permit more than conjecture; it may 

suggest that they were less firmly attached to 

wage employment than the older ones. The extreme variations related to age and sex were 

found among the men under age 39, none of 

whom failed to get a substantial job, and among 

the five women over age 54, only one of whom 

got such a job.

Being a woman or an older worker also tended to lengthen the time required to find a substantial job. The average time, however, is 

strongly influenced by a heavy concentration 

around 30 weeks for both men and women. 

Both extremes of the fairly narrow range occurred in the youngest age group, where the 

average for men was 26.7 weeks and that for 

women, 34.5 weeks. While the women in the 

middle-age group took approximately the same 

length of time as the youngest and those in the 

oldest group took less time than either, the 

small numbers of women outside the middleage group preclude generalizations. Among the 

men, the length of the search for a substantial 

job was clearly longer for the older workers.

Success in finding a substantial job was also 

closely related to the workers’ educational attainments (table 4). With one exception, more 

schooling facilitated eventual reemployment on 

a substantial job for both men and women. 

Among men, the proportion who obtained such 

a job rose from 74 percent of those who had not 

finished elementary school to 96 percent of 

those who had completed high school, although 

the latter figure was not significantly higher 

than that for the men with 9 to 11 years of 

schooling. Women with this much education, 

however, were less successful than those who 

had just 8 years of schooling; otherwise, the

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
pattern of reemployment rising with education 

prevailed.

Opposite relationships between education and 

the length of time required to find a substantial 

job obtained for men and women. Among the 

women, the more educated the group, the shorter the time required; the average length of 

their job search dropped sharply from 38 weeks 

for those with the least education to 22 weeks 

for those with the most schooling. Among the 

men, on the other hand, the time required to 

find substantial reemployment rose as the 

group’s schooling increased, with an insignificant exception for the group with precisely 8 

years of schooling. The least educated men required 25 weeks; those with the most education, 

31 weeks. The men’s experience may imply 

that the better educated were more determined 

and better able to be selective job hunters in a 

depressed community.

Table 4. Educational Differences in Success and

Length of Search for Substantial Job * by Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers, by Sex, A pril 1963

Survey

Sex and years of 

school completed

Percent 

of workers 

obtaining 

any

substantial

jo b 2

Average 

number 

of weeks 

layoff to 

substantial 

job *

Number of workers 

reporting

Years

of

school

Weeks 

layoff to 

substantial 

job

Both sexes____ 77 28 157 121

7 years or less_______ 68 27 31 21

8 years______________ 71 27 49 35

9 to 11 years.............. 80 28 50 40

12 years and over____ 92 30 27 25

Men_______ 85 30 113 98

7 years or less----------- 74 25 23 17

8 years_____________ 81 24 31 25

9 to 11 years------------- 94 29 35 33

12 years and over____ 96 31 24 17

Women_______ 53 31 44 23

7 years or less_______ 30 38 8 4

8 years______________ 56 36 18 10

9 to 11 years. _ ____ 47 23 15 7

12 years and over____ 67 22 3 2

1 A job providing continuous, full-time employment for 3 months or 

more.

2 Percent of number reporting years of school attended; excludes 3 men 

who did not report years of school.

* Average of the weeks reported by the number of workers in column 4.

Number and Types of Jobs Obtained. The laidoff carpet-mill workers also showed considerable diversity in other aspects of their reemployment experience— retention of the first job 

and the number of employers, occupations, and 

industries represented in their post-layoff history.

Altogether, somewhat less than half of all 

workers who had found jobs were still working 

at their first job by the time of the interviews. 

In 7 out of 10 cases, the first job after layoff 

was a substantial one, but even so, nearly half 

of this group were no longer working at the 

same job when they were interviewed in April 

1963. An even larger proportion (threefourths) of those whose first jobs had not been 

a substantial one had been separated from their 

original post-layoff employment by April 1963.

Retention of first jobs following layoff Number Percent

All reemployed w orkers_____________________ 138 100

Obtained substantial first jo b 1 _______________ 96 70

Retained to April 1963 ___________________ 63 38

Not retained to April 1963 ____________ 43 31

Obtained other first j o b ______________________ 42 30

Retained to April 1963 _________________ 10 7

Not retained to April 1963 _______________ 32 23

1 A job providing continuous full-time employment for 3 months 

or more.

Note: Sums of percentages do not equal totals because of 

rounding.

Since there was no other carpet mill within 

150 miles of the community where the displaced 

workers had been employed and none had found 

a substantial job that far from home, all of the 

reemployed workers had gone to work in another industry. (The survey excluded any who 

had been recalled to the carpet mill.) In fact, 

more than two-fifths of these former factory 

production workers found jobs in nonmanufacturing industries, especially construction and 

the service industries, as shown below:

Industry of first substantial jo b 1 Number Percent

Total finding substantial j o b _________ 124 109

Manufacturing _____________________________ 73 59

Nonmanufacturing _________________________ 51 41

Construction____________________________ 17 14

Service -------------------------------------------------- 13 10

Trade ___________________________________ 8 6

Agriculture ____________________________ 3 2

Transportation _________________________ 1 1

Other ___________________________________ 9 7

1A job providing continuous full-time employment for 3 months 

or more.

One-third of the reemployed workers (including those whose first jobs were not substantial) 

had worked for more than one industry after 

layoff; indeed, one-fourth had worked in three 

or four different industries. Undoubtedly the 

limited number of different industries in the 

small local area precluded any greater variety 

of industrial shifts, even by those persons who 

worked for several different employers and who 

performed several kinds of jobs after being laid 

off by the carpet mill. (See table 5.)

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5. Number of E mployers, Kinds of Jobs, and

Industries Represented in Post-Layoff Jobs of

Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers, A pril 1963

Survey

Number of 

employers, 

jobs, or 

industries

Employers Kinds of jobs1 Industries2

Number

of

workers

Percent

of

workers

Number

of

workers

Percent

of

workers

Number

of

workers

Percent

of

workers

Total____ 138 100 138 100 138 100

1_____________ 62 45 82 59 94 68

2_____________ 45 33 11 8 11 8

3_____________ 21 15 31 22 28 20

4_____________ 7 5 11 8 5 4

5_____________ 2 1 2 1

6____________ 1 1 1 1

1 Based on work history records taken by interviewers with job placement experience and edited to discriminate between jobs with differing 

content.

2 Based on 3-digit industry groups as defined in the Standard Industrial

Classification Manual (U.S. Bureau of the Budget, 1957).

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

The average number of employers was 1.8 

per worker during the median period of 23 

months elapsed from layoff to interview—tantamount to a different employer every 13 

months. Nearly one-third had worked for two 

employers, about one-sixth for three, and a 

scattering for four, five, or six different employers. Altogether, 55 percent had worked for 

more than one employer.

In almost all cases, their new jobs were quite 

different from their jobs at the carpet mill, and 

three-fifths of the reemployed workers continued to do the new kind of work wherever 

they were subsequently employed. Over onefifth of the reemployed, however, had three different kinds of jobs and one-tenth had four or 

more.

Work History. As might be inferred from the 

degree of mobility between employers, kinds of 

jobs, and industries, as well as from the difficulties in finding a substantial job, the former 

carpet-mill workers had been unemployed much 

of the time between their layoffs and the April 

1963 interviews. Their experience ranged from 

no further employment at all for 1 of every 8 

workers to continuous employment for 1 of 

every 12. (See chart.) Apart from these two 

extremes, relatively few were unemployed for 

more than 70 percent or less than 20 percent of 

the weeks after layoff when they were seeking 

work. The median of the distribution was 47 

percent.

Because the layoffs were spread over the July 

1960-June 1962 period, the individual work

histories cover a span of time ranging from 39 

to 143 weeks. Their average length was 86.3 

weeks, as shown in table 6. An average of almost 5 of these weeks were spent out of the 

labor force, reflecting primarily the withdrawal 

from the labor force of 14 persons—2 who did 

not seek employment at any time after layoff 

and 12 others who ultimately withdrew but first 

spent varying amounts of time in the labor 

force. Of the 81.6 weeks in the labor force, 

nearly 45 were weeks of employment and 37, of 

unemployment, or about 55 and 45 percent respectively of all weeks spent in the labor force. 

In other words, the former carpet-mill workers 

had been unemployed for 9 of the 20 months 

that had elapsed since they were laid off; an 

average of almost 5*4 months a year.13

There being no national benchmark data, the 

workers’ own past experience may serve. The 

160 interviewed workers had an average of 6.9 

weeks when they received no pay from the carpet mill during the 52 weeks before each was 

laid off.14 Their layoff somewhat more than 

trebled the amount of unemployment experienced in the course of a year.

Table 6. Age Differences in Work History of Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers T hroughout PostLayoff Period, by Sex, A pril 1963 Survey

Sex and age group

Average number of 

elapsed weeks

Percent of total 

elapsed weeks

Total 

number 

of weeks

Out of 

labor 

force

UnemployedEmployed

Outof

labor

force

Unemployed

Employed

All ages___ 86 5 37 44 5 43 52

M e n ___________ 89 4 34 51 5 38 57

Women _ _______ 79 6 45 27 8 57 35

19 to 38 years----- 93 2 26 65 2 28 69

Men________ 96 (2) 24 72 (2) 25 75

Women_____ 75 11 4 23 15 54 31

39 to 54 years----- 84 3 40 41 4 47 49

Men________ 86 3 36 47 4 42 54

Women. 90 4 47 30 4 59 37

55 to 69 years___ 85 14 44 27 16 52 32

Men________ 88 12 45 30 13 51 35

Women_____ 75 21 39 15 29 52 20

1 All weeks in which the worker had any paid employment.

2 Less than 1 percent.

13 As pointed out earlier (p. 6), a few of the workers counted as 

unemployed may not have been actually available for work during 

all the weeks when they were so classified. On the other hand, the 

amount of unemployment may be understated somewhat because 

a worker was counted as employed during every week when he 

had any work, even though he may have been working irregularly 

or part-time while looking for a steady, full-time job.

14 Some allowance should probably be made for imprecise recollection by the workers in reporting on their carpet-mill jobs, 

although in many cases they consulted their own pay records 

and all were required to account for the entire 52 weeks prior to 

the layoff.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DISPLACED CARPET-MILL WORKERS

Extent of Unemployment Following Layoff

(April 1963 Survey)

Percent of Workers

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99

Weeks of Unem ploym ent as Percent of Weeks in Labor Force

In the post-layoff period, unemployment— 

whether actual duration or the proportion of 

weeks elapsed since layoff—had generally been 

lowest among the youngest workers and highest

among the oldest. Part of the advantage of the 

younger workers stems from the fact that their 

work histories spanned a longer interval. They 

had lost their carpet-mill jobs earlier than the

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
older workers, presumably because they had 

less seniority, and thus had an earlier chance 

at existing job opportunities. At extremes of 

the range, the proportions of weeks unemployed 

were 25 percent for men under age 39 and 59 

percent for middle-aged women. These represented 26.3 and 47.2 weeks of unemployment, 

respectively. There may be little significance 

to the fact that the oldest women reported less 

unemployment than the middle-aged group because of the small numbers involved, but it did 

represent an exception to the age pattern. The 

oldest women also provided another exception: 

they did not have more unemployment than 

men of the same age.

Employment was another matter. In every 

age group, the men were employed for a far 

larger portion of the time after layoff than the 

women— 54 v. 35 percent, on the average. The 

contrast was least pronounced in the numerically dominant middle-age groups, but even 

there the percentage was about 1 y% times as 

high for men as for women. There were clearcut age differentials in post-layoff employment 

among the men, with the youngest men having 

been employed 75 percent of the time since layoff and the oldest men only 35 percent of the 

time. Among the women, however, the intermediate age group attained the fullest employment 

(37 percent of elapsed tim e); the youngest had 

a slightly poorer record and the oldest women 

were only about half as successful as the middle-age groups.

Weeks spent out of the labor force represented 5 percent of elapsed time for men and 8 

percent for women. The age-sex groups with 

the fullest employment also had the lowest proportions of time out of the labor force. Conversely, relatively high rates of unemployment 

and of time out of the labor force tended to be 

associated. At one extreme were the youngest 

men, and at the other were the oldest women. 

Both the youngest and the oldest groups of 

women had lower proportions of employed time 

and of weeks looking for work, as well as a 

higher proportion of time out of the labor force, 

than the middle-aged women.

One could interpret these findings as suggesting that the women’s willingness to seek a new 

job was a major determinant of the percent of 

elapsed time during which employment was

actually obtained. Alternatively, the data may 

be interpreted, particularly for the oldest 

women, to mean that they found such hopeless 

prospects of reemployment that they abandoned 

— at least intermittently—any serious attempt 

to seek a job. The economist might properly 

classify them as out of the labor force, whereas 

the sociologist might well make a convincing 

case for continuing to count them as long-term 

unemployed, in order to keep them on the public 

conscience. However, the numbers involved 

here are small and hence can be used to suggest 

that a policy issue of this nature may exist, 

rather than to support any particular resolution of such an issue.

For both men and women, work history was 

strongly associated with years of schooling 

completed. Without exception, the better educated groups were employed for a larger proportion of the time subsequent to layoff than 

the less well educated (table 7). Among the 

men, for example, those with less than 8 years 

of schooling were employed for only 46 percent 

of the weeks following layoff, in contrast to 68 

percent for those with 12 years or more of 

school. Among the much smaller group of 

women who were reemployed at all, education 

had an even more decisive relation to employed 

time than for the men. The data on men tend 

to confirm the inference that the better eduTable 7. Educational Differences in Work History

of Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers T hroughout

Post-Layoff Period, by Sex, A pril 1963 Survey

Average number of weeks

Weeks

Sex and years 

of school 

completed Total Employed 1

Unemployed

Out of 

labor 

force

employed 

as percent 

of total 

weeks

Number

of

workers

Total___ 86 44 37 5 52 160

Years of school 

not reported. _ 83 60 22 71 3

Both sexes— 87 44 37 5 51 157

7 years or less__ 80 33 41 6 41 31

8 years------------- 81 35 42 4 43 49

9 to 11 years___ 87 47 35 5 54 50

12 years 

and over____ 100 68 28 5 67 27

Men........... 89 51 34 4 57 113

7 years or less— 84 38 40 6 46 23

8 years________ 79 41 35 3 52 31

9 to 11 years— 92 55 33 4 60 35

12 years 

and over........ 104 71 28 5 68 24

Women. _ 79 26 46 6 33 44

7 years or less— 68 18 44 6 27 8

8 years________ 84 25 55 4 30 18

9 to 11 years___ 76 28 40 8 37 15

12 years 

and over____ 83 45 29 9 55 3

1 All weeks in which the worker had any paid employment.

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cated can afford to be—and are—more selective 

in finding suitable alternative employment. Indeed, the men who had finished high school 

were the only group whose total duration of unemployment did not exceed the time taken to 

obtain their first substantial jobs. Thus, they 

were apparently able to use temporary jobs to 

finance their longer search for permanent work.

Workers’ Income After Layoff

Considering the employment record of the 

laid-off carpet-mill workers, it was almost inevitable that they would suffer drastic reductions in wage income for which unemployment 

compensation could provide only a partial and 

temporary offset. As in the case of employment 

and unemployment, the least favorable earnings records were found for women, older 

workers, and workers with little education.

Current Earnings Position

Among those who were at work when interviewed in April 1968, two-thirds reported they 

were earning less than they had earned at the 

carpet mill (table 8). This was to be expected 

because of the extensive shifts in industry and 

occupation they had made in order to find jobs 

in a depressed community. In these circumstances, it is rather surprising that about onefifth of them were earning more than before 

layoff.

Women suffered a decrease in earnings after 

layoff more frequently than men and older 

workers more frequently than younger. Ninetenths of the reemployed women, compared with 

five-eighths of the men, were earning less than 

they had during the last month in the carpet 

mill. Even among the youngest workers, fourfifths of the women had lower earnings, compared with less than three-fifths of the men. 

The ratios in the middle age group, which was 

numerically largest, approximated those for all 

reemployed men and women. Among the 

workers over age 55, the 1 reemployed woman 

was earning less, as were all but 1 of the 11 

men.

No woman of any age reported earning about 

the same as she had in the carpet mill. One of 

every 8 men, however, had about the same 

earnings, with the proportion ranging downward from about 1 of 6 for the youngest men to 

1 of 11 for the oldest.

Table 8. Age Differences in Percent of Displaced

Carpet-Mill Workers w ith Current Jobs Paying

Less, More, or Same as Carpet-Mill Job,1 by Sex,

A pril 1963 Survey

Sex and age group

Workers with 

current job

Percent c 

Less

>f workers < 

More

earning— 

Same

Number Percent

All ages--------- 109 100 68 22 10

Men_____________ 88 100 62 25 12

Women___________ 21 100 90 10

19 to 38 years____ 38 100 60 26 13

Men................ . 33 100 58 27 15

Women________ 5 100 80 20

39 to 54 years____ 59 100 67 24 8

Men___________ 44 100 59 29 11

Women________ 15 100 93 7

55 to 69 years____ 12 100 92 8

Men___________ 11 100 91 9

Women________ 1 100 100

1 Carpet-mill earnings on which comparisons are based are gross earnings 

during the week ending nearest the 15th of the month prior to each worker's 

layoff, as shown on the mill's payroll records.

Current earnings were classified as “ same'' if they were within 5 percent 

of mill earnings, “ less” if they were less than 95 percent of mill earnings, 

and “ more” if more than 105 percent of mill earnings.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

None of the oldest group of either men or 

women was earning more. In the other two age 

groups, the proportion who had increased their 

earnings was higher for women age 19-38 and 

for men age 39-54.

These findings add another dimension to the 

less favorable employment experience of women 

and older workers. With respect to women, 

their post-layoff earnings record represented a 

widening of the sex differentials in earnings 

that had existed between carpet-mill jobs, 

perhaps associated with the skill levels of the 

jobs they held.

The relationship between education and comparative earnings position also was similar to 

that observed for various other aspects of employment. Nearly all of the women were earning less when interviewed than they had earned 

before layoff, regardless of education. Among 

the men, however, the better educated showed a 

consistently more favorable comparison between current earnings and those before lay13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
off. Thus, only 13 percent of the least educated 

men were earning more in April 1963 than 

when they worked at the carpet mill (table 9). 

By contrast, 43 percent of the men with 12 

years or more of schooling had a better paying 

current job.

Table 9. Educational Differences in Percent of

Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers w ith Current

Jobs Paying Less, More, or Same as Carpet Mill

Jobs,1 by Sex, April 1963 Survey

Sex and years of 

school completed

Workers with 

current job

Percent of workers earning—

Less More Same

Number Percent

Both sexes___ 2104 100 68 22 10

Men_________ 84 100 62 25 12

7 years or less------- 15 100 73 13 13

8 years----------------- 22 100 64 18 18

9 to 11 years______ 26 100 58 27 15

12 years or more__ 21 100 52 43 5

Women__ 20 100 90 10

7 yenra nr lnoa 4 100 75 25

8 years 4 100 100

9 to 11 years 9 100 89 11

12 years or more__ 3 100 100

1 Carpet-mill earnings on which comparisons are based are gross earnings 

during the week ending nearest the 15th of the month prior to each worker’s 

layoff, as shown on the mill’s payroll records.

Current earnings were classified as “ same” if they were within 5 percent 

of mill earnings, “less” if they were less than 95 percent of mill earnings, 

and “ more” if more than 105 percent of mill earnings.

2 Excludes 2 workers who did not furnish a useable earnings comparison 

and 3 who did not report years of school completed.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

Wage Levels on Post-Layoff Jobs

The overall income position of the former 

carpet workers is depicted more fully in table 

10, which provides two measures of carpet-mill

earnings and five of post-layoff income. None 

of the post-layoff average earnings— on the 

first job after layoff, the first substantial job, 

or the most recent job— is more than 95 percent of earnings during the last month at the 

carpet mill, and the average for all post-layoff 

employment is only 93 percent of mill earnings. And this counts only the weeks in which 

the workers were employed. If the earnings 

are averaged over the entire layoff period the 

disparity increases to a minimum of 25 percent 

in comparison with the last 52 weeks at the 

mill, even though the workers had been unemployed for 7 of those weeks. When, finally, 

unemployment benefits are added to wages, it 

appears that the average income of the interviewed workers following layoff was approximately two-thirds of weekly earnings in their 

last month at the carpet mill.

The lowest earnings on the various postlayoffs jobs were naturally those on the workers, 

initial jobs. On these jobs, gross weekly wages 

averaged $65.19, compared with $73.75 during 

the last month of employment in the carpet 

mill. The reduction, which averaged 11.6 percent, was especially severe for those who had 

relatively low earnings before layoff. For the 

lowest paid one fourth of the workers, wages 

on the first job ranged from $8 to $52 a week, 

compared with $36 to $62 at the mill. On the 

other hand, both limits of the range for the 

best-paid one-fourth of the workers fell only 

$6— from $81-$156 to $75-150.

Table 10. Pre- and Post-Layoff Wage Levels of Displaced Caepet-Mill Workers, A pril 1963 Survey

Number of workers Gross weekly wages

Type of wage indicator

Total

interviewed

Reporting

earnings Mean Median Range

First

quartile

Third

quartile

Gross Wages Per Worker Per Week Employed

Carpet mill, week ending nearest 15th of month before 1960-62 layoff 1_____________________________ 160 160 $73.75 $70 $36-$156 $62 $81

First job after layoff _ ___________________________ 138 135 65.19 65 8-150 52 75

First substantial2 job after layoff---------------------------- 124 123 70.15 65 30-150 54 80

Most recent job, as of April 1963___________________ 138 135 67.24 65 6-170 52 78

All jobs, layoff to April 1963_______________________ 138 135 68.35 66 18-136 54 77

Average Gross Wages Per Elapsed Week

Carpet mill, 52 weeks before 1960-62 layoff 18_______ 160 160 60.53 62 5-97 51 72

All jobs, layoff to April 1963 4______________________ 138 135 45.52 40 2-132 24 58

1 From personnel records of the carpet mill surveyed.

2 A job providing continuous, full-time employment for 3 months or mo re.

5 Gross annual earnings divided by 52. Excludes an unknown amount of 

additional earnings by 8.8 percent of the interviewed workers who reported some income from jobs outside that mill during the year prior to 

their carpet-mill layoff and vacation pay for an average of 1.7 weeks during 

the last 52 weeks at the carpet mill.

4 Excludes any vacation pay that may have been received—probably no 

substantial amount.

Wage levels improved as some workers who 

at first took part-time or temporary employment 

found substantial jobs. Wages on the first substantial job after layoff were only 5 percent less 

than wages at the carpet mill— $70.15 and 

$73.75, respectively. Indeed, the highest one14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quarter of the wages on such continuing fulltime jobs (obtained by 124 of the 160 workers, 

as previously mentioned) were almost identical 

with those at the mill. The most pronounced 

improvement, however, occurred among the 

lowest paid one-fourth of the workers; none of 

these earned less than $30 a week on his first 

substantial job.

By April 1963, however, 55 percent of the 

workers were no longer employed at their first 

jobs, whether they had been substantial or not, 

as indicated in the preceding section. Reflecting these further shifts, the better wages rose, 

but the poorer wages did not— and even fell in 

some cases. The $78 floor for the highest paid 

one-quarter of the workers was only $3 a week 

below their corresponding carpet-mill wage, 

and the highest individual wage was $14 a week 

above the highest reported by the carpet mill. 

The lowest wage, on the other hand, was only 

$6, compared with $36 at the mill, and the top 

demarcation line of the lowest-paid one-quarter 

was still $10 below the corresponding prelayoff 

wage. In short, the current situation of the 

lowest paid workers was no better than it had 

been when they got their first job after they 

were laid off.

Combining all of the jobs held by each worker 

after layoff compresses the range of average 

earnings, in comparison with the other measures of post-layoff earnings. In comparison 

with wages in the carpet mill, however, both 

extremes of the range were about $20 lower. 

The lowest average individual earnings per 

week of post-layoff employment were only half 

as much as the lowest earnings before layoff 

($18 vs. $36) and the highest were similarly 

reduced. The comparative ranges for the 

middle half of the workers were $54-$77 for all 

post-layoff jobs and $62-$81 for the carpetmill jobs, again demonstrating that the workers 

who had earned more at the mill fared better 

after layoff. The average wage for the 138 

workers who had had any employment following 

layoff was $68.34, or about 7 percent below the 

average just before layoff for the whole group 

of 160 interviewed workers.

Age and Sex Differentials

Average earnings, like the proportions of 

workers whose individual earnings after layoff 

were more or less than in the carpet mill, varied 

in relation to the workers’ age, sex, and education. Men had much higher post-layoff earnings than women in every age category, and 

men as a group earned about 40 percent more, 

whether on their first, most recent job, or on all 

post-layoff jobs combined. (See table 11.) The 

older workers of both sexes generally had lower 

earnings on post-layoff jobs; for example, the 

average for all such jobs was $72.30 for those 

under age 39, $68.70 for those in the 39-54 

group, and $56.80 for those over age 54.

Table 11. A ge Differences in Post-Layoff Wage

Levels of Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers, by Sex,

A pril 1963 Survey

Sex and age group

Gross wages per worker 

per week employed

Wages on most 

recent job as 

percent of 

wages on—

Number 

of workers 

repreFirst sented

job

after

layoff

Most 

recent 

job as 

of April 

1963

All 

jobs, 

layoff 

to April 

1963

First

job

All

postlayoff

jobs

All ages____ $65.20 $67.20 $68.30 103 98 1135

Men______________ $69.70 $72.10 $73.50 103 98 103

Women___________ 50.70 51.90 51.10 102 102 32

19 to 38 years_____ 65.70 73.50 72.30 112 102 i 38-39

Men__________ 67.70 75.60 74.90 112 101 i 32-33

Women_______ 55.00 62.30 57.80 113 108 6

39 to 54 years_____ 65.30 66.80 68.70 102 97 i 81-82

Men__________ 73.00 73.70 75.90 101 97 i 57-58

Women ______ 50.00 50.90 50.50 102 101 24

55 to 69 years_____ 58.40 53.50 56.80 92 94 15

Men__________ 60.20 56.80 59.80 94 95 13

Women_______ 46.50 32.00 38.00 69 84 2

1 Excludes 3 of the 138 reemployed workers who did not provide useable 

earnings information for all jobs held after layoff. Data of first job relate 

to 32 males in age group 19-38, and 58 males in age group 39-54. Data on 

other jobs relate to S3 males in age group 19-38, and 57 males in age group 

39-54.

However, on the first jobs after layoff, average earnings were virtually indistinguishable 

between the youngest and the middle groups 

of workers, reflecting the contrasting positions 

of the youngest men and women, with the 

young men earning less, and the young women 

more, than their seniors. Men in the middle 

age group might be presumed to have acquired 

more skill during their longer experience, and 

perhaps this gave them a wage advantage over 

the younger men. However, it will be recalled, 

they found jobs less quickly and experienced 

more unemployment than the younger group, 

and other studies have shown older men some15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
what more reluctant to accept— and employers 

somewhat more reluctant to offer—lower wages 

than they were earning on a job from which 

they were laid off.15

The probable explanation for the different 

age-earnings relationship among women goes 

in another direction. Among the married 

women, the middle-aged were more likely than 

the younger to have passed the most timeconsuming stage of child rearing and consequently to have developed a stronger attachment to the labor force as their teen-age children began to command a larger share of the 

family’s budget. In addition, the older women 

were more likely to have an aged dependent 

in the household. Conversely, the younger 

women’s higher opportunity cost of returning 

to work may have kept them unemployed or out 

of the labor force until they were able to find 

a job that paid more than the middle-aged 

women would accept. Finally, comparatively 

more of the younger women were married and 

thus presumably more dependent on a husband’s 

income.

The young women forged further ahead on 

subsequent jobs, and the young men had outstripped their seniors on their most recent jobs. 

The youngest men and women had the most 

substantial increase (12 percent for the 19-38 

group) in wages from their first to their most 

recent jobs, and the earnings of the oldest group 

declined by 8 percent. This pattern was most 

dramatic in the case of men. Whereas the 

first-job earnings of the youngest men averaged $5 below those of the 39- to 54-year-old 

men, the youngest men were earning $2 a week 

more in their latest jobs. Among the women, 

the youngest already had the highest earnings, 

as indicated previously, and they showed larger 

improvements. Thus, the market value of 

younger workers apparently improved while 

that of their seniors was declining. Employers 

in the area may have found that extensive skill 

and experience in carpet-mill work had limited 

value in other employments. Furthermore, the 

youngest workers may have been more adaptable than the middle-age, and especially the 

oldest.

15 The Older American Worker—Age Discrimination in Em~

ployment Research Materials (U.S. Department of Labor, June 

1965), p. 13.

With respect to earnings over the entire 

period subsequent to layoff—including the first 

job, the most recent job, as well as any intervening jobs— the age pattern was more distinct 

than the sex differentials. For women, the overall average was slightly less than earnings of 

the most recent job, whereas for men it was 

slightly more. Among the women, this reflected 

chiefly the already mentioned improvement on 

the latest job among the youngest age group, 

whose latest job earnings exceeded their overall 

average by 8 percent. The middle aged women’s 

earnings were about the same on their latest 

job as their average on all jobs, and the oldest 

were earning only 85 percent as much on their 

latest job as they had averaged throughout the 

layoff period. The same pattern was characteristic of the men, but at a lower level, reflecting the deteriorating position of the older men 

on their latest job.

Some of the foregoing age-sex differentials 

are undoubtedly associated with differences in 

the educational attainments of the several categories of workers. As has been indicated, the 

older workers tended to have least schooling, 

and the women’s educational level was lower 

than the men’s. And average weekly earnings 

on post-layoff jobs, by whatever measure, progressed from low to high in concert with rising 

educational levels. Considering all post-layoff 

jobs together, the men’s average earnings 

ranged from $65 a week for the least educated 

to $77.60 for those with 12 years or more of

Table 12. Educational Differences in Post-Layoff

Wage Levels of Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers,

by Sex, A pril 1963 Survey

Sex and years of 

school completed

Gross wages per worker 

per week employed

Number of workers 

reporting—

First 

substantial 

jo b 1

Most 

recent job 

as of

April 1963

All jobs, 

layoff 

to April 

1963

Substantial

job

Any

postlayoff

job

Both sexes— $70.20 $66.40 $68.30 123 135

Men................ 74.50 72.60 75.40 100 104

7 years or less__ 68.40 63.80 65.00 16 18

8 years_________ 74.90 66.60 74.00 25 26

9 to 11 years___ 75.30 78.10 75.60 33 34

12 years and more 76.90 78.90 77.60 23 23

Not reported----- 66.30 61.30 3 3

Women______ 49.20 51.40 50.40 23 31

7 years or less— 47.20 45.60 46.40 4 5

8 years................ 51.60 48.40 49.50 10 13

9 to 11 years___ 47.40 54.90 52.40 7 10

12 years and over 47.00 58.70 54.70 2 3

1A job providing continuous, full-time employment for 3 months or more

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
schooling. (See table 12.) The comparable 

range for the women was $46.40 to $54.70; the 

best educated women earned considerably less 

than the least educated men. Among both men 

and women, the wages of the least educated had 

deteriorated, being lower on their most recent 

than on their first substantial job, while those 

who had more than 8 years of schooling had 

improved their earnings, with the women scoring the largest gains.

Average Income After Layoff

Since the interviewed carpet-mill workers 

were unemployed for 45 percent of the elapsed 

time from layoff to April 1963, and about 13 

percent of their last year of employment at the 

carpet mill, it seems desirable to heed the remark that “ Workers live by the year” by considering income per elapsed week rather than 

per week of employment. During the year 

before layoff, time not worked reduced the 

average pay of the 160 interviewed workers 

from $73.75 per working week to $60.53 per 

elapsed week (table 10). After layoff from the 

carpet mill, even the 135 reemployed workers 

had experienced so much unemployment that 

their wage incomes were reduced from $68.35 

per week of employment to only $45.52 per 

elapsed week between layoff and April 1963. 

The combined effect of lower wages on the 

job and the drastically reduced number of 

working weeks was, therefore, to cut the average weekly wage income after layoff by nearly 

30 percent.

The effect of lost time was especially severe 

for those who earned relatively little even when 

employed. One worker’s average wage income

between layoff and April 1963 amounted to only 

$2 a week. Whereas the lowest paid one-fourth 

of the reemployed workers earned up to $54 

per week of employment, the comparable figure 

was only $24 per elapsed week—less than half 

of the corresponding amount during the year 

prior to the carpet mill layoff.

The drastic reductions in wage income, just 

described, were those suffered by the more 

fortunate workers who did succeed in obtaining 

some employment after being laid off from the 

carpet mill. Excluded were 22 less fortunate 

workers who had no post-lay off wage income 

at all.

Unemployment Benefits

Nearly all of the laid-off carpet-mill workers 

were eligible for unemployment benefits. These 

were available, of course, only to jobseekers in 

weeks when they had no earnings and only after 

a waiting period following loss of the job at the 

carpet mill or a subsequent job. Altogether, 

147 of the 160 interviewed workers received 

benefits—for 25.7 weeks, on the average—at 

some time between layoff from the carpet mill 

and the April 1963 interviews. Only 144 of the 

beneficiaries reported the amount received; 

their average benefit was $38.27. (See table

13.)

Benefits were received in only 5 of every 8 

weeks of unemployment, on the average. 

Workers with comparatively short-term unemployment fared better on this score, of course, 

for large percentages of those who were jobless for long periods exhausted their benefit 

rights, even though the State in which they had 

been employed temporarily extended benefits

Table 13. Displaced Carpet-Mill W orkers’ Post-Layoff Experience w ith U nemployment Insurance Benefits,

A pril 1963 Survey

Weeks of Unemployment,1 

of carpet-mill layoff 

to April 1963

Number of 

workers

Average number 

of weeks of—

Benefit weeks 

as percent of 

unemployed 

weeks

Number of 

workers 

exhausting 

benefit rights

Average

weekly

benefit

interviewed

U nemployment U.I. benefits

amount

Number of workers represented_______ 160 146 147 146 2 56 144

All durations___________________ 160 41 26 63 56 $38.27

Less than 1 week ____________________ 13

2 but less than 21 weeks_______________ 33 11 9 83 2 $39.62

22 but less than 27 weeks______________ 22 24 21 87 4 39.28

28 but less than 42 weeks______________ 30 34 28 82 12 37.73

43 but less than 53 weeks______________ 20 47 35 73 11 37.35

56 but less than 78 weeks______________ 29 64 36 56 17 37.96

82 but less than 130 weeks____________ 12 102 35 34 9 36.50

N ot reported _ ________ 1 26 1 38.00

1 Discrete intervals indicate no observation in the omitted range. time of layoff for the following reasons: Not unemployed long enough (2);

8 Excludes 7 workers who reported they did not qualify for benefits at the self-employed (1); no benefit rights (1); disability (1); and maternity (1).

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
during the 1961-62 recession. The surprisingly 

low rates of exhaustion among those unemployed for over three-fourths of a year may be 

attributable to their establishing a new benefit 

year during recurrent period of employment 

which separated several spells of unemployment. Nevertheless, two of every five beneficaries did exhaust their benefit rights.

They were, however, fortunate to have been 

employed in a State where benefit amounts are 

comparatively liberal. The average benefit exceeded 50 percent of the average wage in the 

carpet mill. As is common under State unemployment insurance laws, the benefit formula 

favored the lower wage workers. The uniformity of the average benefit among the 

several classes of beneficiaries, however, may 

also indicate a substantial concentration at the 

maximum benefit level.

For the whole group of 160 interviewed 

workers, the median weekly income obtained 

from the combination of unemployment benefits 

and wages amounted to $48 per elapsed week 

from layoff to April 1963. This was equivalent 

to 68 percent of median carpet-mill earnings 

during the month just prior to layoff ($70) 

and to 77 percent of median carpet-mill earnings during the year prior to layoff ($62). For 

the least fortunate one-quarter of the group 

(including the 22 workers who obtained no 

post-layoff employment) the combined weekly 

income was $28 or less per week or 55 percent 

of the lowest quartile amount obtained from 

wages alone during the year before layoff 

($51). For the most fortunate one-fourth, the 

combined benefit and wage income was $66 or 

more; that is, 92 percent of the top quartile 

carpet-mill wages per elapsed week during the 

year before layoff ($72).

Workers’ Adjustments to Their Post-Layoff Situations

In view of the severe income loss which was 

associated with their layoff, the former carpetmill workers’ adjustments to reduced circumstances depended importantly on certain elements of their previous economic position. 

Their assets and some existing supplements 

to income were to provide a substantial cushion 

against the financial effects of the layoff on the 

family’s budget.

Economic Position Prior to Layoff

Altogether, two-thirds of the group interviewed (106 of 160) stated that they had received “ other money” besides the carpet-mill 

paychecks during the last year of their employment in the mill.

Income from supplemental sources contributed substantially toward meeting the family 

living expenses even prior to layoff. Half of 

the group had other sources of income which 

covered 20 percent or more of their living expenses (i.e., 80 percent or less covered by their 

own wages) and nearly one-fourth met half or 

more of their current expenses from other 

sources of income. On the other hand, twofifths of the group relied on their individual 

carpet-mill paychecks to cover more than 95

percent of the living expenses of themselves 

and/or their families as shown below.

Aside from the displaced workers’ own 

wages, by far the most important source of 

income during their last year of employment 

at the mill had been the wages of a wife or 

husband, reported by half the workers (table

Table 14. Sources of Money Income Supplements to

Wages of Displaced Carpet-Mill W orkers During

Y ear Before Layoff, A pril 1963 Survey

Source of income

Number

of

workers1

Percent

All workers interviewed2 _________________ 160 100

Wages of other family members____ _____________ 85 53

Spouse_____________________ _ ____________ 80 50

Children _ _________________ _____ _________ 5 3

Property income _________ ________ _______ _____ 23 14

Rents________________________ ___________ 18 11

Dividends____________ ________________ _____ 4 2

Farm Income______________ ______________ 1 1

Social insurance benefits__________________________ 20 12

Pensions___________________________________ 7 4

Respondent’s. _ _______________________ 2 1

Others in family________________________ 4 2

Not specified. _______ _______________ 1 1

Unemployment benefits _____________________ 7 4

Others in family_________________________ 2 1

Not specified_____ _____________ _______ 5 3

Disability benefits__________________________ 6 4

Respondent’s __________________________ 2 1

Others in family_________________________ 3 2

Not stated________________ ___________ 1 1

Welfare payments_____________________ _________ 1 1

All oth e r ______________________ ______________ 11 7

1 Some respondents are counted more than once since they reported 

supplemental income from more than one source.

2 Includes those who reported no supplemental income.

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14). Some of the spouses may not have earned 

much, but 50 of the carpet workers (36.5 percent of the 137 workers who were married) 

stated that their wives/husbands were “ usually 

employed” during the year before they, themselves, were laid off.

Next in importance as a source of supplemental income was the ownership of incomeyielding assets, noted by one-seventh of the 

carpet-mill workers. This fraction actually 

understates the true value to the workers of 

property ownership because it does not include 

the implicit income enjoyed from ownership of 

their own homes, and the workers did not regard interest on savings accounts as money 

income. Informal evidence collected during the 

study continually stressed the frugality of local 

residents, and the importance to them of accumulating savings accounts. When faced 

with the loss of wages, many of those workers 

not only had some continuing property incomes 

but also could meet part of their current expenses by borrowing on or disposing of some 

of these assets.

A high proportion of these workers had an 

asset in home ownership. In the year prior to 

layoff, nearly three-fifths (92 of 160) of the 

carpet-mill workers had owned their own 

homes—a remarkably high rate for individuals 

whose own earnings averaged only about $3,150 

a year. Of course, home ownership was facilitated by multiple wage earnings and by income 

from property, and probably a majority of the 

homes were mortgaged. However, home ownership not only continued to provide the workers 

with secure shelter, but also enabled them perhaps to defer some expenses or even to borrow 

money more easily. Had they not been able to 

sustain the required mortgage payments they 

might have been evicted; but, as will be seen, 

this did not occur. At the same time, the 

workers’ important economic stake in the 

ownership of the homes they occupied helped 

to make them disinclined to seek employment 

outside the local area.

The only other source of supplemental income 

mentioned with much frequency was social 

security benefits from both the State and 

Federal governments. Subject to some duplication, one-eighth of those interviewed cited pensions,10 unemployment benefits, and disability 

benefits as a means of meeting family living expenses, even before they were laid off. Most of 

these benefits were being received by other 

members of the family, rather than by the 

carpet-mill workers themselves.

Major Adjustments to Loss of Wage Income

In view of the carpet workers’ large contributions to family living expenses, unemployment benefits were of course a vital means of 

adjusting to reduced income during their often 

prolonged search for new jobs. In addition, the 

wages of other family members assumed 

greater importance, and savings were frequently withdrawn. A variety of other means 

of meeting expenses were also used, although 

infrequently.

Appropriate share of living expenses Workers reporting

covered by workers’ earnings1 Number Percent

All interviewed w ork ers_____________ 160 100

Less than 30 p ercen t_______________________ 4 2

30 percent to 45 p ercent____________________ 9 6

50 percent __________________________________ 24 15

60 percent to 70 p ercent------------------------------ 13 8

75 percent __________________________________ 17 11

80 percent __________________________________ 12 7

85 percent to 95 p ercen t------------------------------ 13 8

More than 95 percent_______________________ 67 42

Not specified________________________________ 1 1

1 Discrete intervals indicate no observation in the omitted range.

Social Security Benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits far outranked any other method of meeting the decrease in wage income. 

Although unemployment benefits were discussed 

in the preceding section of this report, their 

frequency is repeated in table 15 to show how 

crucial a role they played in tiding the carpet 

workers’ families over the post-layoff period.

Not only the former carpet-mill workers but 

also their wives and husbands received unemployment benefits in 18 cases. This fact is 

related to the prevalence of multiple-earner 

families and to the depressed economic conditions in the area.

Eighteen of the laid-off workers also received 

disability benefits on their own behalf and five 

reported that another member of the family

18 Although most of the pensions enumerated in both tables 14, 

and 15 were old-age and survivor benefits under the Federal 

program and were received on the account of another member of 

the family, some of the schedules were not entirely definitive as 

to what was meant by “ social security’* or “ pensions” . An occasional nongovernment pension may have been included.

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
did so. Comparison with the data in table 14 

indicates that disability benefits were received 

much more frequently by the workers studied 

in the period after layoff than in the preceding 

year.

Pensions also furnished aid in 5 cases— 

fewer than in the prelayoff period.

Table 15. Methods op Meeting Post-Layoff Living

Expenses Used by Displaced Carpet-Mill Workers,

A pril 1963 Survey

Method of meeting expenses

Workers reporting 

each method 1

Number Percent

All workers interviewed 2__________________ 160 100

Social insurance benefits: 

Unemployment benefits:

Respondent's__________________________ 147 92

Others in family_________________________ 18 11

Disability benefits:

Respondent’s___________________________ 18 11

Others in family_________ _______________ 5 3

Pensions__________________ _______________ 5 3

Wages of other family members:

Spouse______________________________________ 100 62

Children____________________________________ 9 6

Disposal of assets:

Savings withdrawal__________________________ 58 36

Real estate sold_____________________________ 3 2

Life insurance cashed_______________________ 2 1

Stocks sold__________________________________ 1 1

Savings bonds cashed________________ ______ _ 1 1

Borrowing money:

Nonrelatives as lenders_______________________ 12 7

Relatives as lenders__________________________ 8 5

Gifts:

Surplus food8__________________ ___________ 15 9

Welfare payments________ ________________ 9 6

Miscellaneous:

Living quarters shared4______________________ 7 4

Property income__________ _____ ____________ 2 1

All other__________________ _ ______ ________ 18 11

1 Numbers and percentages subject to duplication because of use of 

more than one method by individual respondents.

2 Some respondents are counted more than once since they made more 

than one kind of financial adjustment.

8 Under Federal food stamp plan. Used as part of welfare relief in the 

9 cases which are listed on the next line.

4 Additional to the sharing of living quarters prior to carpet mill layoff.

Wages of Other Family Members. Second only 

to unemployment benefits in frequency, the 

wages of a wife or husband were reported as a 

resource for meeting living expenses by 100 

carpet-mill workers, or nearly three-fourths of 

these married persons in the group interviewed. 

The increased numbers of spouses of the laid-off 

workers who sought employment illustrate the 

operation of what has been called the “ additional worker theory”—namely, that decreased 

demand for labor will increase the supply. In 

the situation studied, the confirmation of that 

theory was quite conclusive because identical 

individuals and their families were studied for 

periods before and after a major layoff (decrease in labor demand). Whereas 80 of the 

carpet workers’ wives or husbands had contributed earnings toward family living expenses 

before the layoff, 100 had done so in the postlayoff period. It did not follow that the additional workers would all obtain full-time or any 

employment. Indeed, in the year before the 

carpet-mill workers were laid off, only 50 of the 

80 spouses with earnings were “ usually employed.” In the post-layoff period, 18 of the 100 

wives/husbands with earnings had received unemployment benefits. Thus, the only question is 

whether the true increase in the labor force 

of second workers incident to the carpet-mill 

layoffs was from 50 to 82 or from 80 to 100.

The number of children whose earnings contributed to meeting living expenses was also 

greater after the carpet-mill workers were laid 

off. However, even in the post-layoff period, 

only 9 percent of the former carpet-mill workers 

had children working.

Disposal of Assets

The third most frequent method used to adjust to the layoff situation was to withdraw 

past savings, and 58 of the interviewed workers 

had done so at some time between losing their 

carpet-mill jobs and April 1968. The frequent 

availability of this source of ready funds attests 

to the frugality of the carpet-mill workers, as 

already mentioned. Further evidence of this 

frugality is the fact that one-fourth of those 

who had withdrawn their savings after layoff 

(15 of 58) had restored their previous savings 

balances by April 1963, since there were net 

withdrawals at the time of interview by only 

43 of these interviewed. (See table 16.) Only 

3 had withdrawn all of their pre-layoff savings 

and only 17 had let their savings balances fall 

below 45 percent of the pre-layoff amount.17

Apart from withdrawing savings, the laidoff 

carpet-mill workers very seldom disposed of 

assets to meet living expenses. Although 18 of 

the interviewed group had received income from 

ownership of rental property before layoff and 

only 2 continued to obtain substantial income 

from rents, only 3 had sold real estate. These

17 Exact accuracy is not claimed for these findings, since understandably, savings bank books were not inspected. However, the 

broad findings were developed during extensive interviews with 

cooperative respondents and, moreover, are consistent with general 

information collected in the local area regarding the workers* 

savings habits.

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 16. Withdrawal of Savings by Displaced

Carpet-Mill Workers F ollowing Layoff, By Size

of Net Reduction, April 1963 Survey

Number

Percent of workers

Status of Savings of

workers

Total

With some 

withdrawals

With net 

withdrawals

Total ............................. 160 100

No savings withdrawn._____ 102 64

Some savings withdrawn___ 58 36 100

Balance restored b y ____

April 1963 1.................... 15 9 26

Balance not restored by 

April 1963____________ 43 27 74 100

Net reduction in savings account

between date of carpet-mill

layoff and April 1/63:

100 percent_________________ 3 2 5 7

75 to 99 percent_____________ 10 6 17 23

55 to 74 percent_____________ 1 1 2 2

45 to 54 percent_____________ 12 7 21 28

25 to 44 percent_____________ 9 6 16 21

1 to 24 percent______________ 8 5 14 19

1 Workers who reported some savings withdrawn to meet living expenses 

after carpet-mill layoff but not reporting any net withdrawal of savings at 

time of interview, April 1963.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

facts appear to illustrate the fall in both rents 

and the saleable value of real estate which 

occurs in an area which becomes severely depressed.

Infrequently Used Methods of Post-Layoff 

Adjustment

In view of the sharp decline in wage incomes which followed their layoffs, the carpetmill workers’ relatively infrequent resort to 

the more extreme measures of adjustment to 

straightened circumstances is quite noteworthy. 

Less than two-fifths of them disposed of any 

assets, as just mentioned, and nearly all of those 

who withdrew savings still had reserves. In 

fact, in response to a separate question, nearly 

two-thirds of the workers interviewed reported 

that their living expenses had been entirely 

covered by unemployment benefits plus the 

wages of themselves and other members of their 

families.

Particularly notable is the infrequent resort 

to borrowing or charitable relief. About oneeighth of the laid-off carpet-mill workers had 

borrowed money to meet current expenses, and 

only 8 had borrowed money from anyone except 

persons related to them. Although 15 workers 

had received government-provided surplus food, 

part of these benefits had been received independently of welfare relief. As for welfare

relief itself, only 9 of the 160 workers had been 

thrown back on such public charity. This study 

did not attempt to assess the adequacy of standards of the local welfare system and thus no 

statement can be made as to whether relief was 

granted under relatively generous or harsh 

conditions. Nevertheless, the fact that only 1 

in 18 of the laid-off carpet mill workers had 

been “ on welfare” at any time prior to interview indicates that they had by no means 

become a group of paupers.

Finally, it is well recognized that “doubling 

up” of living quarters is a reliable indicator of 

low or declining levels of living. Yet only 7 of 

the displaced carpet-mill workers had resorted 

to this method of coping with severely inadequate income. Since no survey of housing conditions was included in this study, no judgment 

is expressed as to whether or not the carpetmill workers were already housed in substandard living quarters before they were laid 

off. It does not appear, however, that crowding 

was frequently increased after layoff.

Additional data on the ownership of homes, 

farms, and businesses tend to support the 

evidence that the layoffs of 1960-62 had not led 

to widespread poverty— at least up to the time 

of interview in April 1963. The former carpetmill workers did not lose the homes they had 

owned prior to layoff. On the contrary, 97 of 

them owned the houses they occupied in April 

1963 as compared with 92 during the year 

before they lost their carpet-mill jobs. Of the 

14 workers who had owned any part of a farm 

or business enterprise, either before or after 

layoff, only 1 lost each ownership after layoff. In no case, among the persons interviewed, 

did a former carpet-mill worker attempt to 

meet the problem of unemployment by embarking on a farm or business enterprise. Neither 

was there any evidence that former carpet-mill 

workers attempted to meet the problem of the 

loss of a usual job by obtaining more than one 

substitute job. On the contrary, whereas 14 

persons had worked on a second job during the 

year before layoff, only 7 of them had done so 

at any time after layoff. The depressed state of 

general economic conditions in the local area 

did not encourage either the launching of new 

enterprises or “ moonlighting.”

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Elsewhere in this report, comment is made 

on the fact that the former carpet-mill workers, 

while often moving between different employers, occupations, and industries, had not 

often sought employment outside the local area 

as a method of adjusting themselves to their 

post-layoff situation. Furthermore, the fact 

that the weekly earnings on the new job they 

did obtain averaged within 8 percent of their 

previous carpet-mill earnings suggests that 

these former carpet-mill workers were under 

no great pressure to work for sharply reduced 

wages.

The prolonged unemployment which customarily followed the layoffs of 1960-62, undoubtedly led to severe economic distress in 

some cases. Nevertheless, the infrequent use of 

the more extreme methods of adjusting to the 

layoffs suggests that, in combination, unemployment benefits, continued employment of the 

workers, spouses, and the frugality and independence of the workers themselves cushioned 

the shock of the layoffs remarkably well, and 

prevented widespread, acute economic distress.

22

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. Methodology

As explained in the Background section of 

this report, the 794 workers within the scope 

of the study had been laid off by the carpet mill 

at various times between the middle of 1960 and 

the middle of 1962. Timing of the layoffs 

is given in table A -l. The 794 constituted the 

mill’s reemployment roster as of June 30, 1962, 

which listed all employees laid off and not recalled in the preceding 2-year period who had 

preferential hiring rights under the mill’s 

agreement with the Textile Workers Union of 

America.

For each person on the roster, the company 

provided the name, address, marital status, 

social security number, sex, date of birth, date 

of first hiring and date of termination, and, 

for both the first and last jobs, occupational 

title, and divisional and departmental identification. The company also coded each job title 

into 1 of 15 grades of skill.

This information, classified by sex, age, and 

skill level of the last job, was used as a control 

in selecting a sample of the laid-off workers to 

be interviewed. The population of 794 was distributed into 12 sampling cells made up of 3 

age groups (19 to 38, 39 to 54, and 55 to 69) 

and 3 skill groups (as measured by earnings) 

for each sex. The sample of 160 for interview 

was obtained by a random drawing, after 

shuffling, of one-fifth of the names in each cell. 

Additional names were drawn (and interviews 

subsequently conducted) to provide substitutes 

for any unusable schedules and to supplement, 

should it be necessary, the number of observations from the smaller cells (e.g., low-age, highskill women) .18

The interview schedule was developed by the 

director of the study after consultation with 

representatives of the company, the union, and 

State and local officials of the State Employ18 The data in this report are based exclusively on the balanced 

20-percent sample of the population.

ment Service, as well as with officials of the 

U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Bureau 

of the Budget who subsequently gave it formal 

clearance.

All interviewing was completed during April 

1963, so that the observations would have an 

approximately uniform time reference. That 

month was chosen as a period which would not 

encompass an unduly long interval from the 

time of the first layoffs in the summer of 1960 

and yet be sufficiently removed from the last 

layoffs in the late spring of 1962 to permit 

observation of more than the initial readjustments by the laid-off workers.

The interviews were conducted in the homes 

of the selected workers by a part-time staff of 

13 trained interviewers. Ten of the interviewers were drawn from the staff of the local 

office of the State Employment Service who 

were employed on this work during evenings 

and on weekends.

After interviews were completed, the company compiled and furnished, for each person 

in the interview sample, the gross earnings 

from employment at the mill (a) during the 

week ending nearest the 15th day of the month 

prior to date of termination and (b) during the 

12 months preceding that date.

Table A -l. Timing op the 1960-62 Layoffs of

Production Workers at the Surveyed Carpet Mill

Workers laid off

Time of layoff

Number Percent

Total _ _ ___________________________ 794 100

1960:

3d quarter____________________ ______________ 17 2

4th quarter_________________________________ 136 17

1961:

1st quarter__________________________________ 168 21

2d quarter__________________________________ 35 4

3d quarter_________________ ______ ________ 118 15

4th quarter__________________________ _______ 31 4

1962:

1st quarter.^ ---------------------------------------------- 237 30

2d quarter__________________________________ 52 6

Source: Reemployment roster of the surveyed carpet mill, as of June 30, 

1962.

23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other information utilized in the study included data provided by the company on its 

average employment, labor turnover, and production at the mill; U.S. shipment of carpets, 

provided by the American Carpet Institute; and 

local unemployment rates and background information from the local office of the Employment Service.

All of the data presented in this report were 

processed and analyzed at the New York State 

School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Although the interview sample consists of 20

percent of the population from which it was 

drawn and was selected to insure full representation of certain characteristics that tend to 

be associated with differentiations in employment experience, many of the resulting statistics necessarily are based on a small number of 

observations. Like all such statistics, the sample 

data are strictly accurate only when used to 

describe the group studied and are subject to 

relatively large amounts of error if used as 

estimates for the population represented by 

the study group.

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Worker Interview Schedule

------ Layoff Survey Page 1

Budget Bureau NO.____________________ *Serial_

Approval Expires______________________

WORKER INTERVIEW SURVEY (Revised)

I. Identification and Postcard Information

♦NAME____________________________________________ *SEX_______ ♦MARITAL____

ORIGINAL ADDRESS__________________________________________________ *TEL_____

CURRENT ADDRESS_________________________________________________ TEL____

INTERVIEW:

TIME DAY DATE SCHEDULED BY INTERVIEWER

REMARKS___________________________________________________________________________

RESCHEDULE:

TIME DAY DATE SCHEDULED BY INTERVIEWER

REMARKS___________________________________________________________________________

UNABLE TO SCHEDULE OR RESCHEDULE_________________________

REASON_________________________________________________________________________

CONFIRMED 

CALLBACKS (1)

TIME DAY DATE SCHEDULED BY INTERVIEWER

REASON___________________________________________________________________________

(2) __________ ________ __________ _____________________________________________

TIME DAY DATE SCHEDULED BY INTERVIEWER

REASON

♦Prior to interview, enter these items, First line on p. 2 and line 1, col. (b) on p. 3

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 2a

Instructions for Opening of Interview

If “ Postcard Return” is checked “ Yes” on page 2:

A. All the information received from the respondent on the postcard will be entered prior to the 

interview.

B. Following is a Sample Statement of the Interviewer in such cases:

PROFESSOR TOLLES ASKS ME TO THANK YOU FOR REPLYING TO 

THE LETTER HE MAILED YOU ON FEBRUARY 28. THAT WAS MORE 

THAN A MONTH AGO. NOW HE WANTS TO BE SURE THE ANSWERS 

YOU SENT HIM ARE UP TO DATE. LET’S CHECK OVER THE ANSWERS 

ON THE POSTCARD YOU RETURNED TO HIM.

Hand respondent blank copy of the double postcard form.

(Be Sure to retrieve the postcard before the end of the interview)

As the question are repeated, the interviewer will circle on page 2 each item which is found to have 

been correctly reported. Draw a line through each item which was missing or which needs to be 

amended and enter the new or revised information, but do not circle the new or revised answers.

If “ Postcard Return” is checked “ No” on page 2:

A. Remainder of page 2 will be blank and items are to be filled in at the beginning of the interview.

B. Sample Statement:

PROFESSOR TOLLES DOES NOT HAVE ANY RECORD OF A REPLY FROM 

YOU TO THE LETTER HE MAILED YOU ON FEBRUARY 28. HE HAS 

ASKED ME TO SEE YOU PERSONALLY, SO AS TO COMPLETE HIS 

RECORDS. LET’S CHECK OVER THE QUESTIONS ON THE POSTCARD 

HE SENT YOU.

(Show the respondent the blank card)

26

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 2

* Serial

♦Postcard Return: YES__________ NO___________

1. Are you working for pay at the present time?

YES, FULL-TIME

PART-TIM E____

N O ______________

2. If you DO NOT have a paid job, are you:

UNABLE TO WORK (Sick or disabled) ?__ 

DOING HOUSEWORK in your own home?—

GOING TO SCHOOL?____________________

RE TIR E D ?______________________________

ACTIVELY LOOKIN FOR WORK?_______

IF you DO have a paid job at present:

3. Do you earn more or less each week than you usually 

earned when you worked a t------ ?

NOW EARN MORE_____

EARN LESS___________

ABOUT THE SAME____

4. How many weeks have you worked on your present job?

Please answer the following questions whether you now have a 

paid job or not:

5. How many weeks did you have a paid job during each of the

years, 1960 to the present time (induing your former 

job a t------ ?

WEEKS

1960, WEEKS

1961, WEEKS

1962, WEEKS 

1963, So far, WEEKS

6. If a course were available to retrain you for another 

job, with temporary pay, would you be interested? 

(NOTE: This is NOT an offer of any training course.)

Y E S ________

N O __________

DON’T KNOW

♦Prior to interview, record serial number on this and every sheet used.

27

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 3a

Serial

Column (c)— Status______

F— Full-time employment

P—Part-time employment

S— Self-employed

U— Unable to work

H—Housework, own home

E— Education (School)

R—Retired

LW—Looking for work 

(Unemployed)

0 — Other (specify and 

explain h ere):

CODE SYMBOLS

Column (j) First source 

of information, leading 

to each job. (If “ F” or 

“ P” in col. (c )).

Use only ONE symbol.

RP—Relatives or friends

working in the plant

RN—Relatives or friends 

NOT in the plant

DP—Direct application at the 

plant

RE—Recall, previous employer

ES— Employment Service 

(SES)

N—Newspaper or Radio

LU—Labor union

PA—Private employment 

Agency

0 — Other job lead (specify 

here):

Column (k) Reason for 

termination of the 

job (if “ F” or “ P” 

in col, (c ))._________

T—Temporary job

Q— Quit (voluntary)

L—Laid off

0 — Other reason for 

termination 

(specify here):

28

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
II. Worker History since Layoff

Page 3b

Serial

7. You were laid off from the------mill in *_____ mo. *_____yr. Is that right?

YES NO

Now we want to get a more complete record of just what happened to you after you were laid

off. First about your form er------ jo b --------How many hours a week did you usually work a t--------

(Enter (g) & “ F” or “ P” under (c )).

*

(a) (b) (C) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) a) (k)

p S Usual Usual Reae Beginning End t Type Kind Gross Hours Location Job son

r of of a of of Work Weekly Per of Work Travel Infor­ for

i Period Period t Industry (Job Title) Earnings Week City-State Miles mation End

0 u

d Mo.-Yr. Mo.-Yr. s

1. x x x x x * Carpet

Mfg.

x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

(Continue the record on any further sheets as needed.) OTHER SHEETS?

♦Prior to interview, enter layoff date on first line to text and 

on numbered line 1, col. (c ).

Period shown on line 1 refers to th e ------jobs, fill in, during interview, the blank spaces under columns (c ), ( f ), (g ), and (i).

Lines 2ff are to account for every subsequent change in status 

(col. (c ).).

Last numbered line as used will represent respondent’s status at 

time of interview.

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 4

Serial

III. Employment at

A. Last 2 years before Designated Layoff— “ Usual” Job

8. You have said how much you usually earned at (7-line 1 col. ( f ))

(a) WAS YOUR “ USUAL” JOB A T ------ SAY DURING YOUR LAST TWO YEARS

THERE— THE SAME JOB AS THE ONE YOU HAD JUST BEFORE YOU

WERE LAID OFF? Y E S 

N O _____

(b) If “ No” : WHAT WAS YOUR “USUAL” JOB?

JOB TITLE________________________ DEPARTMENT_____________

9. (a) WAS YOUR “ USUAL” JOB A T ------ ALSO the MOST SKILLED

WORK YOU HAVE EVER DONE FOR PAY ANYWHERE SINCE YOU FIRST

STARTED TO WORK? Y E S ____

N O _____

(b) If “ No” : WAS THE MOST SKILLED WORK DURING YOUR

LIFE DONE ON A JOB A T ------ ? Y E S ____

N O _____

(c) If “ No” under (b) WHAT WAS THE MOST SKILLED JOB

YOU HAVE HAD?

Product or Service of Employer __________________________________

Kind of Work you did? __________________________________

When that job began? Mo._______ Y r._______ . Ended? Mo. Yr.

B. Last Year (52 weeks) before Designated Layoff

10. DURING THE LAST YEAR YOU WERE A T ------:

(a) HOW MANY WEEKS DID YOU HAVE SOME WORK FOR PAY? WEEKS _____

(b) HOW MANY WEEKS WERE YOU LAID OFF WITHOUT ANY PAY?

WEEKS ____

(c) DID YOU HAVE ANY FULL WEEKS OF PAID VACATION?

Yes__ WEEKS _____

No___ WEEKS XXX

WEEKS 52

(Check here if respondent does not remember:______ )

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 5

Serial

IV. Most Recent Job After Layoff, Compared with Last Job a t------

Now think of the job you had a t------ just before you were

laid off.

Think also of the (job you now have) (last job you have had)

I would like your own opinion of those two jobs.

11. WHICH WAS THE MORE SKILLED JOB—YOUR LATEST JOB OR THE JOB YOU

HAD AT MOHAWK JUST BEFORE------ LAID YOU OFF?

Recent job required more skill____

Recent job required less skill ____

(Check here if doesn’t know:_______ )

The two jobs required about the same skill_____________________________ _____

12. WHICH JOB DID YOU LIKE THE BEST? CONSIDERING EVERYTHING

ABOUT THE WORK WHICH WAS THE BETTER JOB?

(is)

Recent job (was) Better than------ jo b __________ _____

(is)

Recent job (was) Worse than------ jo b __________ _____

The two jobs were about the same to respondent____

13. There are many things that can make a job a good one or a bad one. The

wages you get each week are one thing, but not the only thing. Look at 

this card, for instance. Here is a list of things that may be better 

or worse. Let’s consider each thing on this list. You’ve already 

told me about the wages. We’ll check that off.

(a) ARE YOUR RECENT WAGES HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THOSE YOU

GOT ON YOUR LAST JOB A T ------ ? B etter________ ____

W orse________ ____

About the same

Now what about the place where you did your work on each 

of these jobs?

(b) WHICH JOB HAD THE BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS? WAS THERE 

ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE HEAT OR LIGHT, OR WHETHER YOU COULD 

WHILE WORKING, OR SUCH THINGS ? Recent better

Recent w orse____

About the same

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 6

Serial

How about the way you were told to do the two jobs? On some jobs you’re left pretty free to 

do the work your own way. On other jobs you have to do it just as you are told. Sometimes 

you are not told enough about how to do it.

(c) WAS THE SUPERVISION ON THE JOB AT THE LAST PLACE

YOU WORKED BETTER OR WORSE THAN IT WAS A T ------ ?

Recent better______

Recent worse _______

About the same_____

(d) WAS THE WORK YOU DID MOST RECENTLY MORE INTERESTING

WORK FOR YOU THAN THE WORK YOU DID ON YOUR LAST 

JOB A T ------ Recent better_______

Recent w orse_______

About the sam e_____

Then there is the question of the fairness of an employer in his treatment of you and the other 

workers. Some employers are very fair to the workers, whether they can do much for 

them or not. Sometimes a company, or a worker’s foreman, may play favorites or not give 

the workers as good a break as they could.

(e) WHICH EMPLOYER TREATED YOU MORE FAIRLY— YOUR LAST

EMPLOYER O R ------ ? Recent better ________

Recent w orse______

About the same_____

In some places the people in the shop are more friendly than in other places.

(f) DID YOU LIKE THE OTHER WORKERS BETTER AT THE LAST

PLACE YOU WORKED THAN A T ------ ?

Recent better________

Recent w orse______

About the same_____

(g) WHICH JOB GAVE YOU MORE STEADY WORK—YOUR MOST

RECENT JOB OR YOU R------ JOB? Recent better — _____

Recent worse ________

About the same_____

(h) HAVE YOU HAD A BETTER CHANCE TO GET AHEAD (Advancement)

ON YOUR MOST RECENT JOB OR ON THE JOB YOU HAD A T ------ ?

Recent better______

Recent worse ________

About the same

IV. 13. (continued)

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 7

Serial

Jobs these days carry fringe benefits in addition to the 

paycheck—things like holidays with pay, paid vacations, 

higher rates of pay for overtime work, pensions, savings 

plans and so forth. Think of all such things together.

(i) DID YOUR MOST RECENT JOB GIVE YOU BETTER FRINGE

BENEFITS THAN YOUR L A S T------ JOB?

Recent better ________

Recent w orse_______

About the same_____

Sometimes you can earn good pay on a job, but only by 

working longer hours than you want or at bad times of 

the day for you.

(j) DID YOU LIKE THE TIME OF THE WORK SHIFT YOU HAD AND

THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF WORK BETTER ON YOUR MOST RECENT 

JOB THAN THE LAST JOB YOU HAD A T ------ ?

Recent better_______

Recent w orse_______

About the same_____

14. Now let’s look back over the list on that card

WHICH OF THOSE THINGS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU 

THE THING YOU MOST WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ANY JOB?

Rank: 1 is whatever is most 

important. 

(Worker to 

select at least 

1, 2, 3)

W ages--------------------------------------- ---------

Physical conditions------------------------------

Freedom from unnecessary

supervision----------------------------- ---------

Interesting w ork------------------------ ---------

Fairness of your employer--------- ---------

Friendly fellow w orkers---------------------

Steadiness of w ork-----------------------------

Chance for advancement---------------------

Fringe benefits__________________ _____

Shift and Hours--------------------------

IV. 13. (continued)

(a)

WHICH IS THE NEXT (b)

MOST IMPORTANT TO YOU? (c)

(d)

WHICH IS THE THIRD (e)

THING YOU WANT TO KNOW (f)

ABOUT ANY JOB? (g)

(h )

ARE ANY OTHER THINGS (i)

ON THIS LIST IMPORTANT (j )

TO YOU? HOW IMPORTANT?

33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 8

Serial

V. Living and Working Arrangements, at present and while employed at

Professor Tolies wants to report how much the------ layoff

changed the lives of you workers who lost your jobs. So he 

needs to know a few things about how you live and work now and 

how things were with you when you were working at the mill.------

15. The beginning for everybody is being born in the first place.

WHERE WERE YOU BORN? City, or town or County______________

State (if in U .S .A .)_________________

Country (present name, if possible)

16. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN OR N EAR----------

SAY, WITHIN 20 MILES OF T H E ------ MILL? Years

17. IN ALL THE TIME SINCE YOU BECAME 21 YEARS OLD, HOW MANY

TIMES HAVE YOU MOVED? Number

(Means “ How many times changed "residence” or the 

place you slept most of the time?” )

18. If married (compare page 1, line 1),

(a-1) HAS YOUR WIFE (OR HUSBAND) MOVED SINCE YOU WERE

LAID OFF FROM T H E ------ MILL? (Date shown, p.3.

line 1, col. (b )) Yes

(a-2) If not married

SINCE THE MONTH YOU WERE LAID OFF FROM (date 

shown, p.3, line 1, col. (b), HAVE YOU CHANGED THE 

PLACE WHERE YOU SLEEP MOST OF THE TIME?

Yes

No

(b) If Answer to (a) is “ Yes,”

DID YOU MOVE YOUR HOME (residence) MORE THAN 20 MILES 

AT ANY TIME SINCE YOU WERE LAID OFF F R O k ------ ?

Yes

No

(c) If answer to (b) is “ Yes,”

WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU MOVED YOUR HOME (residence)

BY MORE THAN 20 MILES? Month

Year

34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 9

Serial

V. (continued)

19. (a) DO YOU NOW OWN THE PLACE WHERE YOU LIVE? (or, if married 

the place where your wife (husband) lives)

(Means ownership wholly or partly) Yes

No

(b) If answer to (a) is “ Yes,”

IS (OR WAS) THIS PLACE CLOSE ENOUGH TO WHERE 

YOU WORK (OR DID WORK, MOST RECENTLY) SO THAT 

YOU CAN (OR COULD) GO FROM YOUR HOME TO YOUR 

WORK (commute) EVERY DAY? Yes

No

(c) BEFORE YOUR LAYOFF FROM----------, DID YOU THEN

OWN YOUR OWN HOME?

(Means ownership at any time within 2 years of 

layoff) Yes

No

(d) WAS THE PLACE YOU OWNED BEFORE THAT LAYOFF

CLOSE ENOUGH TO T H E ------ SO THAT YOU

COULD GO TO WORK FROM YOUR HOME (commute)

EVERY DAY? Yes

No

20. If a person owns a farm or business of his own that may make 

a difference as to where he lives.

(a) DO YOU OR YOUR WIFE (HUSBAND) NOW OWN A FARM OR ANY

BUSINESS OF YOUR OWN?

(Includes farm or business of wife or husband. Also 

includes part ownership.) Yes

No

(b) DID YOU OWN ANY FARM OR BUSINESS BEFORE YOU

WERE LAID OFF FROM------ ?

(Includes farm or business of husband or wife.

Also includes part ownership) Yes

No

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 10

Serial

21. (a) DOES YOUR WIFE (HUSBAND) WORK FOR MONEY PAY AT 

THE PRESENT TIME?

Yes

No

Not Married

V. (continued)

If answer to (a) is "No” ,

(b) IS SHE (HE) LOOKING FOR WORK RIGHT NOW?

Yes

No

Not Married

Whether answer to (a) is "Yes” or “No,”

(c) DID YOUR WIFE (HUSBAND) USUALLY HAVE A JOB FOR 

MONEY PAY BEFORE YOU WERE LAID OFF FROM------ ?

Yes

No

Not Married

22. ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THE LIVING EXPENSES OF YOURSELF 

(and "your family” , if any) WERE COVERED BY YOUR

O W N ------ PAYCHECK DURING THE YEAR BEFORE YOU

WERE LAID OFF FROM------ ? (Approximate percent

is sufficient) ______

23. BESIDES YO U R------ PAYCHECK, DID YOU (AND YOUR

FAMILY) HAVE ANY OTHER MONEY COMING IN, DURING

YOUR LAST YEAR A T ------ ? Yes

No

If answer is "Yes” ,

WHERE DID YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY) GET ANY OTHER 

MONEY, DURING YOUR LAST YEAR A T ------ ?

(a) ANOTHER JOB OF YOUR OWN?

(b) A JOB OF YOUR WIFE (HUSBAND) ?

(c) MONEY EARNED BY YOUR CHILDREN

(d) RENT FROM PROPERTY YOU (and/or

your wife (husband)) OWNED?

(e) ANY OTHER SOURCE WE HAVE NOT

MENTIONED?

If (e) is checked, state the source here:

Check all sources 

stated

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 11

Serial

24. How is it now?

V. (continued)

Check all 

sources 

given

(a) DO YOU WORK AT MORE THAN ONE JOB?

(b) DOES YOUR FAMILY LIVE PARTLY ON MONEY

YOUR WIFE (HUSBAND) EARNS?

(c) DOES YOUR FAMILY GET SOME MONEY FROM ANY

OF YOUR CHILDREN WHO WORK?

(d) DO YOU (and/or wife (husband)) RECEIVE MONEY

FROM RENTING PROPERTY

(e) DO YOU (AND YOUR FAMILY) NOW HAVE ANY OTHER

SOURCE OF MONEY WE HAVE NOT MENTIONED

If (e) is checked, state the source 

here:

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 12

Serial

VI. Family Adjusted Since------Layoff

After you lost your job a t------ , I suppose you must have had many problems in meeting your

living expenses. I have just a few more questions about how the layoff affected you (and 

your family).

First let’s check on just what your family is and was before you were laid off from------ .

25. (a) DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN WHO ARE NOW NOT YET 

18 YEARS OF AGE? IF SO, HOW MANY?

None

Number

(Regardless of whether the children are dependents)

(b) DURING THE YEAR BEFORE YOUR------LAYOFF, DID

YOU THEN HAVE CHILDREN WHO WERE THEN UNDER 18?

IF SO, HOW MANY?

None

(Regardless of whether the children are dependents)

Number

26. (a) HOW MANY PERSONS DO YOU (AND YOUR WIFE -or 

husband) NOW SUPPORT?

None

Number_______

(“ Support” means more than half their living expenses provided by the wife and/or husband. Includes any children, regardless of age, as well as any others actually supported. 

Exclude from the number the respondent and spouse).

(b) HOW MANY PERSONS DID YOU (AND YOUR WIFE-or husband)

SUPPORT DURING THE YEAR BEFORE YOU R------ LAYOFF?

(See explanation under 26 (a))

None

Number

27. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SINCE

YOU R------ LAYOFF? (Refers only t o -------

unemployment compensation benefits.)

Yes

If answer to above question is “ No” , skip to (f); If “ Yes” , ask (a) 

to (e), as required:

(a) FOR HOW MANY WEEKS SINCE YOUR------LAYOFF?

(b) HOW MUCH WAS YOUR USUAL WEEKLY BENEFIT?

No

Weeks___

(c) HAVE THESE BENEFITS STOPPED BY NOW?

Yes

No

If answer to (c) is “ Yes” , ask (d) and (e):

38

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 13

Serial

M onth_______

Year

Check one resaon

I got a paid jo b -----------.--------------------------------------- ------------

My benefit rights were used u p ___________________ ________

Other reasons (If checked, _______

specify reason here):_____________________________________

If answer to first question under 27 is “ No” :

(f) WHY DIDN'T YOU RECEIVE ANY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT?_______________

28. APART FROM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, HOW HAVE YOU (AND YOUR 

WIFE—or husband) MANAGED TO MEET YOUR LIVING EXPENSES,

SINCE THE TIME YOU WERE LAID OFF FROM------ ?

Check each 

method used

(a) Nothing used, except wages of respondent (and/or

wife or husband), plus respondent’s own unemployment

benefits?_________________________________________________________________ ________

(b) Any unemployment benefits of any other members of fam ily?______________

Drew out previous savings?_____________________________________________________________

If this item is checked, ask:

ABOUT WHAT PERCENT OF THE SAVINGS YOU HAD AT

THE TIME OF YOUR MOHAWK LAYOFF HAS BEEN DRAWN 

OUT? (Accept approximate percent or a rough 

fraction which interviewer will convert to a

percentage)_______________________________________________________ ______ %

(d) Borrowed money? (exclude time-payment purchases) _______

(e) Sold property? (Include added mortgage or sale of part ownership)_________ ________

(f) Got money from other members of the family who lived in home of the

respondent? (Whether given or lent?) ___________________________________________

(g) Got money from relatives who did not live with

respondent? (whether given or lent)_____________________________________ ________

(h) Got money from other individuals? (Not relatives,

whether given or le n t)___________________________________________________ _______

(i) Shared living quarters with others, not previously shared?__________________ ________

(j) Received assistance from any welfare agency? _____________________________

(Whether a government or a private agency and 

whether relief was in money or in kind)

(k) Received surplus food? (whether as part of general

welfare relief or any special surplus food

distribution plan) ________________________________________________________

VI. (continued)

27. (continued)

(d) WHEN DID THESE BENEFITS STOP?

(e) WHY DID THESE BENEFITS STOP?

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 14

Serial

28. (continued)

(l) Assisted by receipt of disability benefits?______

(m) Assisted by receipt of workmen’s compensation

benefits?___________________________________

(n) Any other source of assistance?______________

if checked, specify source here:

VI. (continued)

40

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 15

Serial

VII. Availability for Employment

You have answered questions about the time in the past when 

you were looking for work. Now Professor Tolies needs a little 

more information about just how you stand right now—not only 

whether you are looking for a job but what kind of a job you 

most want, if you do want one.

First let’s check over your answers about looking for work.

If respondent has a job at present (“F” or “ P” in question 7,

1st line, col. (c)) ask:

29. (a) EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A JOB NOW, ARE YOU 

ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A BETTER ONE?

Yes

No

If answer to (a) is “ Yes” , ask:

ARE YOU LOOKING ONLY FOR A FULL-TIME JOB OR 

WOULD YOU THINK A PART-TIME OR SEASONAL JOB 

MIGHT BE BETTER THAN YOUR PRESENT JOB? (check one)

F

P

S

If respondent does not have a job when interviewed, ask

(b) to (h) as may be appropriate:

(b) ARE YOU FULLY ABLE TO WORK AND ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR

A JOB RIGHT NOW?

Yes

No

If “ Yes” , check what kind of job:FF :P :S 

If answer to (b) is not a positive “Yes” , ask (c):

(c) DO YOU FEEL IT’S NO USE LOOKING FOR WORK BECAUSE

THERE ARE NO JOBS OPEN, BUT THAT YOU WOULD TAKE A 

JOB IF YOU COULD FIND ONE?

Yes

No

If “ Yes”, check what kind of a job :F ;P ;S :

If answer to (b) or (c) is “ No” , ask:

(d) ARE YOU NOW RECOVERING FROM A TEMPORARY DISABILITY

AND PLAN TO LOOK FOR WORK WHEN YOU DO RECOVER?

(Includes both illness and physical injury)

Yes

No

If (d) is not applicable, ask:

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 16

Serial

29. (continued)

(e) HAVE YOU A PERMANENT DISABILITY WHICH MAKES YOU UNABLE

TO TAKE A PAYING JOB?

Yes

No

If (e) is not applicable, ask:

(f) ARE YOU NOW NEEDED AT HOME SO MUCH THAT IT IS NO

USE LOOKING FOR A PAYING JOB?

Yes

No

If “ Yes” , specify why needed_____________________________________________

(g) HAVE YOU STOPPED LOOKING FOR A JOB BECAUSE OF YOUR

AGE? (Retired)

Yes

No

(h) IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON WE HAVE NOT MENTIONED WHY

YOU ARE NOT LOOKING FOR A JOB AT THIS TIME?

Yes

No

VII. (continued)

If, “ Yes” , specify the reason

30. How about a possible return to (mill) ?

(a) Check here if respondent has already been recalled

by m ill:___________________________________________________________

(b) DO YOU EXPECT TO BE RECALLED TO A JOB B Y ------

(formerly------ ) ? __________________________________________________

Yes

No

If “ Yes” :

WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU MAY BE RECALLED?

Months from date of interview? Mos.

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 17

Serial

31. If respondent is looking for work or expects to look for work 

in the future, ask:

(a) WHAT KIND OF A JOB WOULD YOU MOST PREFER TO HAVE IN 

THE FUTURE?

VII. (continued)

WOULD THAT BE WORK IN A FACTORY?

Yes

No

WHAT OTHER KINDS OF JOBS WOULD YOU BE WILLING 

TO DO? (List three, if posible, in order of 

preference, indicating whether it constitutes 

factory work in each case.)

(b) Factory work? Yes

No

(c) Factory work? Yes

No

(d) Factory work? Yes

No

32. If respondent is or recently has been looking for work 

(whether presently employed or not), ask:

HAVE YOU BEEN ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A JOB OUTSIDE

T H E ------ AREA— SO FAR AWAY THAT YOU COULD

NOT GO TO WORK EVERY DAY FROM THE PLACE WHERE YOU 

NOW LIVE ? (i.e. outside the commuting area)

Yes

No

43

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 18

Serial

33. SUPPOSE A JOB WERE OFFERED TO YOU, WHICH PAID ABOUT

THE SAME WAGES AS YOUR USUAL JOB A T ------ BEFORE

YOUR LAYOFF BUT WHICH WAS SO FAR AWAY FROM YOUR 

PRESENT HOME THAT YOU COULD NOT GO TO WORK FROM 

THE PLACE YOU NOW LIVE, (outside the commuting 

area) WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT SUCH A JOB OFFER?

VII. (continued)

check one

(a) Already has taken such a job since------

la y o ff------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------

(b) Definitely would take such a jo b ________________________________________ _

(c) Perhaps would take it that; would depend

on (specify w h a t)___________________________________________________ _______

(d) Would not take it, because:______________________________________________

44

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 19

Serial

VIII. Education and Training

When a worker is laid off his chance of getting another 

good job partly depends, as you know, on the education 

and training he has had or can get. So now I have a few 

questions about your own education and training.

34. WHAT IS THE HIGHEST GRADE OF REGULAR SCHOOL YOU

COMPLETED?

(a) Never attended regular school

check _____________________________________________

I f attended regular school, give highest grade 

number:

(b) Elementary___________________________________________________

or

High School___________________________________________________

or

College_______________________________________________________

35. HAVE YOU HAD ANY SPECIAL JOB TRAINING, IN ADDITION

TO REGULAR SCHOOL AND IN ADDITION TO TRAINING BY 

ANY FOREMAN OR FELLOW WORKER?

Yes

No

Regardless of initial answer to #35, show respondent the card, 

labelled “Kinds of Special Job Training” and ask #36

36. Let’s check over some of the kinds of special job training the 

workers have had. Please look at this card.

HAVE YOU HAD ANY OF THESE KINDS OF SPECIAL JOB TRAINING? 

(check below under #37)

If “ Yes” for any kind as listed on card, ask:

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 20

Serial

37. DID YOU GET THAT KIND OF TRAINING BEFORE OR AFTER

YOU WERE LAID OFF FROM -----------OR BOTH BEFORE

AND AFTERWARD?

Check each kind 

in one or both 

spaces

Before After

(a) APPRENTICESHIP (Leading to a journeyman’s skill) ? ______ _____

(b) TECHNICAL TRAINING IN HIGH SCHOOL OR JUNIOR

COLLEGE? (Examples: Auto Mechanic, Electrical,

Home Economics, Agriculture) ______ _____

(c) TECHNICAL TRAINING IN A PRIVATE TRADE SCHOOL? ______ _____

(d) TECHNICAL TRAINING WHILE IN THE ARMED FORCES? ______ _____

(e) BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL TRAINING IN HIGH SCHOOL

OR JUNIOR COLLEGE? (Clerical, Stenographic,

Bookkeeping, etc.) ______ _____

(f) BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL TRAINING IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL? ______ _____

(g) BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL TRAINING WHILE IN THE ARMED

FORCES? ______ _____

(h) EMPLOYER’S TRAINING COURSE? (Check only if the

course required attendance for 6 weeks or more) ______ _____

(i) CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL TRAINING? ______ _____

(j) OTHER? (not incidental training on the job) ______

If (j) is checked, specify kind of training 

here: ___________________________________

If any of the items in #37 have been checked, ask #38 and #39.

VIII. (continued)

38. (a) DID ANY SPECIAL JOB TRAINING HELP YOU TO GET OR KEEP 

THE MOST-SKILLED JOB YOU HAD A T ------

(Note: “ Most skilled job” has 

been identified under # 9 (a) 

above)

(Very helpful 

(Some help 

(No help 

(Don’t know

If “ very helpful” or “ some help” has been checked, ask:

Check one

(b) WHICH KINDS OF TRAINING WERE HELPFUL? 

List, by letter— (a) etc. as shown in #37

Letter(s):

46

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Page 21

Serial

39. (a) DID ANY SPECIAL JOB TRAINING HELP YOU TO GET OR 

KEEP ANY JOB SINCE YOU WERE PAID OFF FROM ------ ?

Check one

(Note” Answer to # 7 above, (Very helpful _______

shows any jobs since (Some help _______

------ layoff) (No help _______

(Don’t know _______

VIII. (continued)

If “very helpful” or “ some help” has been checked, ask:

(b) WHICH KINDS OF TRAINING WERE HELPFUL? Letter(s)

List, by letter— (a), etc.— as shown in #37 _______

Question # 6 on the postcard we checked over asked about a possible 

training course to fit you for a job, or a better job than you 

have now. Professor Tolies wants me to ask that question again 

so that he can be sure how you feel about any training course 

for workers who were laid off from the------ mills. (The interviewer diouldjnakevetyclear that the asking of the following 

questions does not imply any specific retraining plan and that 

the answer does not constitute any application for admission or 

preference for admission in any subsequent possible plan.)

40. (a) IF THERE WERE A PLAN AT PRESENT FOR TRAINING WORKERS 

FOR NEW JOBS AND FOR PAYING THE WORKER SOMETHING 

WHILE HE WAS LEARNING, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED?

If (a) is answered “Yes” or “ Perhaps” , ask (b):

(b) WHAT KIND OF TRAINING WOULD YOU WANT? 

If (a) is answered “ Perhaps” , ask (c):

Check one:

Yes

Perhaps

No

Doesn’t know

(c) You say you might or might not be interested.

WHAT WOULD YOUR OWN INTEREST DEPEND ON? 

(Describe) ______________________________________________

If (a) is answered “ No”, ask (d):

(d) WHY ARE YOU NOT INTERESTED?

(Describe reason)_______________________________________

47

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A Case Study

Displaced Pottery Workers’ Adjustment to Layoff

by David Levinson

Report on a study of the Department 

of Economics, Ohio University, 

under a grant from the 

U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

49

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Acknowledgments

The director of this study is indebted to the following persons for their 

encouragement and assistance in carrying it out: E. L. Whettley, president of the International Brotherhood of Operative Potters; J. Hall and 

J. Wells, operating managers of potteries affiliated with the United States 

Association; W. Papier, director of research, and H. Dinsmore, East Liverpool district director—both of the Ohio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation; and Kenneth G. Van Auken, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Summary _________________________________________________________________ 53

Background of the study________________________________________________ -— 54

Personal characteristics_____________________________________________________ 55

Age, sex, and marital status------------------------------------------------------------------- 55

Education and training--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56

Homeownership and residence___________________________________________ 56

The pottery job_____________________________________________________________ 58

Unemployment_____________________________________________________________ 51

Extent of unemployment_______________________________________________ 61

Unemployment benefits-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63

Financial adjustments to unemployment_________________________________ 64

The new job________________________________________________________________ 66

Type of employment_____________________________________________________ 68

Attitudes and aspirations------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 71

Jobs at the potteries___________________________________________________ 72

Pottery jobs and the rule of seniority------------------------------------------------------ 72

Employment conditions generally------------------------------------------------------------- 73

Older w orkers_________________________________________________________ 73

Young persons and unemployment______________ 74

Working away from home_______________________ 74

Attraction of industry--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74

Resentment against city functionaries____________________________________ 74

Social security____________________________________________________ 74

Unemployment compensation___________________________________________ 74

Training ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75

Appendixes:

A. Methodology ____________________________________________________ 76

Nonrespondents--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76

Distribution of Respondents-------------------------------------------------------- 76

Personal interviews--------------------------------------------------------------------- 77

B. Survey questionnaire-------------------------------------------------------------------- 79

Tables:

1. Current age of displaced pottery workers, by sex, 1962-63 survey------ 56

2. Years of school completed by displaced pottery workers, by sex, 1962-

63 survey----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56

3. Duration of displayed pottery workers’ residence in or near community

of pottery job, by sex and selected communities, 1962-63 survey------- 57

4. Distance traveled to pottery job by displaced pottery workers, by sex

and selected communities, 1962-63 survey_________________________ 58

5. Pottery job tenure of displaced pottery workers, by sex and operating

status of pottery, 1962-63 survey--------------------------------------------------- 59

6. Skill level of pottery jobs, displaced pottery workers, by sex and operating status of pottery, 1962-63 survey--------------------------------------------- 59

51

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents—Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

7. Hourly wage rates on pottery jobs, displaced pottery workers, by sex,

1962-63 survey----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59

8. Weeks worked by displaced pottery workers in last year on pottery job,

by sex and operating status of pottery, 1962-63 survey------------------- 60

9. Wages earned by displaced pottery workers in last year on pottery job,

by sex and operating status of pottery, 1962-63 survey------------------- 60

10. Layoff dates of displaced pottery workers, by operating status of

pottery, 1962-63 survey---------------------------------------------------------------- 61

11. Labor force status upon layoff, displaced pottery workers, by sex and

age, 1962-63 survey---------------------------------------------------------------------- 62

12. Duration and success of job search by displaced pottery workers, by

sex, age, and pottery employer group and operating status, 1962-63 

survey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64

13. Incidence of receipt of unemployment benefits and reasons for nonreceipt among displaced pottery workers, by sex and age, 1962-63 

survey___________________________________________________________ 65

14. Weeks of unemployment benefits drawn by displaced pottery workers,

by sex, 1962-63 survey___________________________________________ 65

15. Current receipt of unemployment benefits and reasons for benefit termination among displaced pottery workers, by sex, age, and selected 

employer group, 1962-63 survey__________________________________ 66

16. Weekly unemployment benefits of displaced pottery workers, both sexes

and males, by State, 1962-63 survey---------------------------------------------- 66

17. Current labor force status of displaced pottery workers, by sex, age,

and pottery employer group, 1962-63 survey_______________________ 67

18. Hourly wage rates on current job and on pottery job for reemployed

displaced pottery workers, by sex, 1962-63 survey_________________ 70

19. Comparative location of current job and pottery job, displaced pottery

workers, by sex, 1962-63 survey__________________________________ 70

20. Comparative distance traveled to work on current job and pottery job,

displaced pottery workers, by sex, 1962-63 survey__________________ 70

Appendix tables:

A -l. Circumstances of nonviability or nonresponse, 1962-63 survey of

displaced pottery workers_____________ 77

A-2. Distribution of respondents to part I of questionnaire by pottery 

from which separated, modal period (s) of separations, and status

of pottery, 1962-63 survey of displaced pottery workers__________ 77

A-3. Information from part I of questionnaire on work status of part II

nonrespondents, 1962-63 survey of displaced pottery workers____ 78

52

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A Case Study of Displaced Pottery Workers’

Adjustment to Layoff

Summary

When this study of pottery workers was made 

in late 1962 and 1963, about 1 in every 7 who 

had lost their jobs at least 6 months earlier was 

still looking for work. At the time, such longterm unemployment affected less than 1 percent 

of the U. S. labor force. It is likely that more 

of the pottery workers would have been unemployed had not 2 women of every 5 and 1 man 

of every 6 left the labor force. Most of these 

women said they were “ doing their own housework” and nearly all of these men said either 

that they had retired or that they were unable 

to work.

For those who had found jobs—about threefourths of the men and less than half of the 

women—the search had been prolonged, consuming at least 6 months for a majority of the 

women and about one-fourth of the men. Many 

of the employed reported lower wage rates than 

in the pottery, although a majority said that 

their new jobs required at least as much skill. 

In addition, a sizable number had taken jobs 

outside the town where they had worked in the 

pottery.

A majority, on the other hand, said that their 

new jobs provided steadier employment than 

they had had in the pottery. The last year of 

pottery employment had typically afforded work 

in no more than 4 of every 5 weeks. This circumstance undoubtedly helps to explain the 

high proportion of women among those laid 

off—nearly half of the total, or almost twice the 

relative number employed in manufacturing as 

a whole.

Many of the employment difficulties experienced by the pottery workers, particularly the

women, were associated with advanced age. 

Two-thirds of the men and three-fourths of the 

women were at least 45 years old, far more 

than in the U. S. labor force. But only 1 of 

every 8 pottery workers was old enough to 

qualify for full retirement benefits under OldAge and Survivors Insurance, and eligibility for 

benefits under a recently negotiated industry 

pension plan required 1 year’s service between 

December of 1962 and 1966, when benefits were 

to become payable. Retirement does not, then, 

appear to have been a practicable alternative to 

employment for any great number of the 

pottery workers.

Many of them had little education, training, 

or experience to fit them for other employment. 

Half had worked at the pottery for at least 15 

years, and over four-fifths had held unskilled or 

semiskilled jobs. About half had never gone 

beyond grade school, and less than one-tenth 

had any job training for work outside the 

pottery. Most of them were either unwilling to 

take training or had reservations about it, frequently citing advanced age or ill health as a 

barrier.

These reasons were also often given by the 

four-fifths of the pottery workers who said 

either that they would not move or would be 

reluctant to do so in order to accept a job at the 

same rate of pay they had earned in the pottery. 

Homeownership and other reasons associated 

with longtime residence in the area were, however, far more prevalent.

During the period when these workers were 

being laid off, the areas where they lived and 

worked were generally characterized by rela58

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tively high unemployment rates or persistent 

unemployment. Much of the industry throughout the area is heavy manufacturing (steel, 

metal products, and machinery); and mining 

and construction also account for a sizable proportion of employment. Thus, not only were 

jobs scarce at the time, but many of those that 

were available were beyond the physical capacity or the skill of the older men and were 

foreclosed to the women. Although there were 

other potteries in the area, employment in the 

industry was generally not expanding. As an 

example of declining employment opportunities, 

one of the largest potteries claimed that mechanization had increased its physical production 

per man-hour about 55 percent between 1948 

and 1962.

Against this economic background, over onethird of the men and over half of the women 

who had been laid off by the potteries 6 months 

or more before the survey began had, at the 

time of the survey, exhausted their unemployment benefits. This occurred despite the fact 

that one-third of all those who drew benefits 

were on the rolls for 26 weeks or more.

The desperation of the older pottery workers 

is vividly summed up in the following comment by one of the participants in the study:

. . . At one time [our town] was the pottery center of 

the world and now, on every corner, empty buildings, 

business going out, simply because of no work, and the 

workers cannot buy. . . . the sad part of it is that most 

of these people are like myself; they spent all their lives 

in pottery, and now they are too old to get other work. 

And there is no other work here. . . . As for me, I am 

59 years old, too young to get social security and too 

old for lots of jobs.

Background of the Study

The 13 potteries that had laid off the workers 

covered in this study were all located in the 

so-called tri-State area—the panhandle of West 

Virginia and the adjacent areas of Ohio and 

Pennsylvania. Ten of the thirteen were within 

a 35-mile radius of East Liverpool, Ohio, and 

five were either in that city or across the Ohio 

River in Chester or Newell, West Virginia.

East Liverpool is the location of the national 

office of the United States Potters Association 

(USPA), of which all the potteries were members. The USPA accounted for over half of the 

1962 output of earthenware, or semivitreous 

ceramic dinnerware, manufactured for household use (industry 3263, as defined in the 

Standard Industrial Classification Manual by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Budget).1 East Liverpool also houses the national headquarters of 

the International Brotherhood of Operative Potters (IBOP), the union with which the USPA 

deals.

1 This industry has declined in physical volume of output by more 

than 40 percent between 1950 and 1960. [The Relationship Between

Imports and Employment, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, April 1962. Processed, 143 pp.] The statements 

of management officials interviewed indicate that the causes of the 

decline were some combination of import competition, plus domestic 

competition from plasticware and glassware.

Seven of the potteries were still operating at 

the time of the survey (designated in this report as undissolved potteries and identified 

merely as companies A through G to avoid disclosing their identity). These companies were 

asked for lists of the names and addresses of 

the production and maintenance workers laid 

off since May 1959, and not recalled by the 

summer of 1962. The earlier date was chosen 

because it marked the signing of a collective 

bargaining agreement between the USPA and 

the IBOP which established a priority claim to 

a 32-hour workweek by employees on the payroll as of July 1, 1958— the basic work force. 

Under the agreement, other employees—the 

extra list—were to be laid off in any week in 

which the basic work force would otherwise be 

employed less than 32 hours.

Only 2 of the 6 dissolved potteries (identified 

as companies S, T, W, X, Y, and Z), that is, 

those that had either shut down or gone out of 

business between 1958 and 1962, were able to 

supply a list of their former production and 

maintenance workers. One of these two, Company Z, shut down in the last quarter of 1962, 

while the study was in progress. For the other 

four dissolved companies, much of the neces54

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sary information was obtained from former 

local union officers who had been involved in the 

shutdowns and other knowledgeable persons 

suggested by the national union. Additional information was found in court records of bankruptcy proceedings.

Altogether, a list of 2,194 names and addresses of former employees of the 13 potteries 

was compiled. Beginning in the fall of 1962, the 

first part of a 2-part questionnaire (appendix 

A) was mailed to these persons with two followup mailings to those who had not returned the 

questionnaire. Similarly, within a period ranging from 1 to 5 months of the time part I of the 

questionnaire was returned, part II was mailed 

and three follow-up mailings were made to nonrespondents. The mailing operation was completed in June 1963. At that time, a sample of 

the nonrespondents was selected for personal 

interviews, which were conducted during the 

summer of 1963. The methodology is described 

in greater detail in appendix A, which also gives 

some information about the characteristics of

the nonrespondents. A total of 1,468 responses 

were obtained to part I of the questionnaire and 

1,303 to part II.

Nearly all of the respondents who completed 

questionnaires omitted the requested information for one or more items. These persons are 

included, in the tables in this report, in the “ unreported” category.

The questionnaires sought information about 

the workers’ personal characteristics, their jobs 

at the potteries, their experience following the 

layoff—both during the period of unemployment and on the subsequent job (if any)— and 

some information, largely attitudinal, about 

their reactions to their changed employment 

status.2 These categories provide the organizational framework for this report.

2 The director of the study also interviewed the chief operating 

managers of 7 of the firms, the chief officers of the Potters union, 

and certain other officials. The focus of the interviews was management and union efforts to maintain business and thus preserve job

opportunities in the industry. The findings of that part of the study 

are not presented in this report, which is restricted to the information obtained from the workers themselves.

Personal Characteristics

In age, sex, marital status, and education, the 

composition of the study group of pottery 

workers differed appreciably from that of the 

labor force of the U.S. at the time of the study. 

The pottery workers included more married 

women, more persons age 45 or over, and more 

persons with scant education— characteristics 

associated with the lack of occupational and 

geographic mobility. Prevalent homeownership in locations close to the pottery as well as 

long residence in or near the place where they 

worked also tended to give the pottery workers 

strong roots in the community.

Age, Sex, and Marital Status

Nearly half of the respondents to part I of 

the questionnaire were women. By contrast, 

women accounted for only one-third of both the 

U.S. labor force and total employment in the 

pottery and related products industry in 1962- 

63. As indicated later, there is some evidence 

that the pottery industry in the tri-State area 

has been a major source of factory work for 

women.

There were significant differences3 in the 

proportion of men and women between the dissolved and undissolved potteries. In fact, 

women outnumbered men among the workers 

laid off by potteries still in operation, as shown 

in the following tabulation:

Both Sexes Men Women

Status of pottery Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Perher cent ber cent her cent

Total ____________ 1,468 100 762 100 706 100

Dissolved ______________ 1,155 79 648 85 507 72

Undissolved____________ 313 21 114 15 199 28

Perhaps the men employed by the undissolved 

potteries had, by virtue of greater continuity 

of employment, achieved higher seniority than 

the women or were less vulnerable to layoff 

because they had held more skilled jobs. 

A series of layoffs prior to shutting down would 

then leave comparatively more men to be displaced when the pottery closes.

In recent years, about two-fifths of the men 

and women in the labor force have already

8 Unless otherwise indicated or obviously inappropriate, the 

chi-square test o f significance at the 5-percent level was used 

throughout this report.

55

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
passed their 45th birthday. Among the pottery 

workers, on the other hand, this age group encompassed nearly two-thirds of the men and 

three-fourths of the women (table 1). About 

two-fifths of the total were 55 or older, and 

about one-eighth had attained age 65. Although 

younger workers were more likely to be beyond 

the scope of this survey because they had moved 

away (appendix A ), the potential overrepresentation of older workers is probably not large 

enough to negate the conclusion that the laidoff pottery workers might be expected to experience prolonged unemployment. The older 

women, in particular, were likely to have a difficult job search.

Because so many of the women had reached 

the age when married women are most apt to 

work, it is not surprising that more of them 

were married than is the case in the labor force 

as a whole— 64 percent, as compared with 56 

percent. (In addition, children under the age 

of 18 were reported less frequently by the 

married women among the pottery workers 

than by those in the labor force— 40 percent vs. 

55 percent.) The smaller difference in the proportion of married men (81 percent of the 

pottery workers but 77 percent of the labor 

force) may be traceable to underrepresentation 

of men under the age of 25.

Education and Training

While women in the labor force as a whole 

have higher educational attainments than men, 

the reverse is true among blue-collar workers, 

probably because the men tend to hold the more 

skilled jobs. The pottery workers were in exception in this respect. Whereas about oneTable 1. Current A ge of Displaced Pottery Workers,

by Sex, 1962-63 Survey

Current age

Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total i.............. 1,468 100 762 100 706 100

14 to 19 years_______ 2 0 1 (2) 1 (2)

20 to 24 years_______ 44 3 42 6 2

(2) „ 25 to 34 years_______ 148 10 109 14 39 6

35 to 44 years_______ 257 18 122 16 135 19

45 to 54 years_______ 440 30 197 26 243 34

65 to 61 y e a r s -_____ 278 19 123 16 155 22

62 to 64 y ea rs______ 123 8 65 9 58 8

65 years and older----- 169 12 100 13 69 10

Unreported__________ 7 0 3 (2) 4 (2)

1 Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 

9 Less than 0.5 percent.

Table 2. Y ears op School Completed by Displaced

Pottery Workers, by Sex, 1962-63 Survey

Years of

Both sexes Male Female

school completed

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total.............. . 1,468 100 762 100 706 100

No formal schooling __ 3 0 2 C1) 1 0

Grades 1 to 5________ 70 5 48 6 22 3

Grades 6 to 8........ .. 641 44 326 43 315 45

Grades 9 and 1 0 ____ 318 22 157 21 161 23

Grades 11 and 12____ 364 25 194 26 170 24

First 2 years of college 

Other (as school for

8 0 7 0 1 0

handicapped)......... 11 0 3 0 8 1

Unreported__________ 53 4 25 3 28 4

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

third of the men and two-fifths of the women 

employed as blue collar workers in March 1964, 

had not gone beyond elementary school,4 among 

the pottery workers more than two-fifths of 

both the men and the women were in this category (table 2).

Moreover, an even smaller number of the 

women than of the men pottery workers had 

vocational training for occupations outside the 

pottery— only 37 women, compared with 76 

men. Because of the correlation between education and training, it is unlikely that many of 

either the men or women with other training 

were among the least educated.5 *8 In either case, 

the training may have had little current applicability, since three-fifths of the handful who 

had training had completed it prior to 1950.

Such levels of education and vocational training do not suggest any great occupational 

mobility.

Homeownership and Residence

Residential patterns among the pottery 

workers also typify a relatively immobile 

group. A majority of them lived less than 4 

miles from the pottery where they were employed, and only 7 percent lived more than 10 

miles away, with the distance inversely related 

to the size of the pottery community. The per4 Formal Occupational Training of Adult Workers: Its Extent,

Nature, and Use (U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower, Automation and Training, 1964),

Manpower/Automation Research Monograph No. 2, pp, 5-6,

8 “ Education Attainment of Workers, March 1964,” Monthly

Labor Review, May 1965, p. 523, also available as Reprint 2463.

56

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
centage who owned their own homes—somewhat higher on the average than in the Nation 

as a whole— also varied inversely with the size 

of the community. There was, however, no such 

relationship between length of residence in the 

area and size of community.

The average pottery worker appears to have 

lived about 80 percent of his life in or near the 

community where the pottery was located 

(table 3 compared with table 1). That more 

of the women had lived there longer than 

the men was largely due to their greater concentration in the upper age groups. It may also 

reflect the married woman’s commitment to the 

location of her husband’s job and probably 

more stable employment patterns for nonpottery workers, to whom many of these women 

were married.

Like the age distribution, the data on length 

of residence may be biased by the greater probability of outmigration among younger persons. 

This inference is supported by data for Crooksville, the smallest pottery town covered in the

study, Steubenville, the largest town included, 

and the East Liverpool area, the center of the 

industry.6 There were few marked differences 

in length of residence between Steubenville and 

Crooksville, but both showed significantly 

longer residence than East Liverpool. Most of 

the layoffs among Steubenville pottery workers 

had occurred over 2Vsj years before the study 

began and those in Crooksville had occurred 2 

years earlier. In East Liverpool, on the other 

hand, over four-fifths of the layoffs did not take 

place until the study was in progress, and more 

of the younger workers may still have been in 

the area. Length of residence in the area therefore appears to be largely a function of the age 

distribution of the pottery workers remaining 

in the area.

Similarly, the data on homeownership may 

overstate the extent of ownership if one assumes that the workers who were not homeowners were more likely to have moved out of 

the area and therefore to be excluded from the 

study. Some 60 percent of the men and 70 perTable 3. Duration op Displaced Pottery Workers’ Residence in or near Community of Pottery Job, by

Sex and Selected Communities, 1962-63 Survey

Duration of 

residence

Both sexes Male Female

Crooksville,

Ohio

Steubenville,

Ohio

East Liverpool, 

Ohio, area

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total__________ 1,468 100 762 100 706 100 90 100 63 100 641 100

Less than 1 year______ 2 (i) 2 C1) 3 (x)

1 to 5 years__________ 19 W 1 14 ^ 2 5 0) 6 W 1

6 to 13 years_________ 50 3 31 4 19 3 1 2 26 4

14 to 24 years________ 200 14 129 17 71 10 6 7 3 5 103 16

25 to 34 years________ 244 17 133 18 111 16 10 11 7 11 103 16

35 to 44 years_______ 343 23 159 21 184 26 15 17 16 25 167 26

45 to 54 years________ 332 23 147 19 185 26 31 34 17 27 122 19

55 to 64 years________ 193 13 98 13 95 14 21 23 11 17 83 13

65 years or more_____ 60 4 33 4 27 4 7 8 7 11 19 3

Did not live in (near)

community________ 7 (l) 5 (i) 2 C1) 3 (x)

Unreported___________ 18 1 11 1 7 1 1 1 2 6 W 1

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

cent of the women reported owning their homes, 

with the difference probably traceable in part to 

the greater prevalence of elderly unmarried 

women. It might also reasonably be assumed 

that families with working wives are more 

likely to buy a home. (Only 31 percent of the 

men pottery workers reported that their wives 

were working at the time of their layoff, whereas it will be recalled that 64 percent of the 

women workers were married.)

The extent of homeownership—averaging 65

percent—varied inversely with the size of the 

community in which the pottery workers had 

been employed, ranging from 79 percent in 

Crooksville to 42 percent in Steubenville. It

•According to the 1960 Census of Population, Crooksville had a 

population of about 3,000—somewhat over one-tenth of the total 

in Perry County, Ohio. The Steubenville-Weirton Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (Jefferson County, Ohio, and Brooke and 

Hancock Counties, West Virginia) had almost 168,000 inhabitants, 

with about three-fifths of the total in the Ohio portion of the area. 

The population of Columbiana County, Ohio, in which East Liverpool is located, was about 107,000, and the city itself had some 

22,000 inhabitants.

57

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 4 . D i s t a n c e T r a v e l e d t o P o t t e r y J o b b y D i s p l a c e d P o t t e r y W o r k e r s , b y S e x a n d S e l e c t e d C o m m u n i t i e s ,

1962-63 Survey

Distance traveled

Both sexes Male Female

Crooksville,

Ohio

Steubenville,

Ohio

East Liverpool, 

Ohio, area

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total__________ 1,303 100 676 100 627 100 87 100 53 100 583 100

Less than A mile_____ 226 17 107 16 119 19 38 44 6 11 65 11

A mile but less than 1

mile_______________ 111 9 51 7 60 10 8 9 16 3

1 mile_______________ 245 19 134 20 111 18 26 30 1 2 83 14

2 to 3 miles__________ 255 20 129 19 126 20 7 8 5 9 181 31

4 to 5 miles__________ 180 14 96 14 84 13 2 2 27 51 89 15

6 to 10 miles_________ 162 12 87 13 75 12 2 2 11 21 97 17

11 to 25 miles- ______ 63 5 36 5 30 5 2 2 1 2 26 5

More than 25 miles___ 30 2 25 4 5 C1) 12 2

Unreported__________ 28 2 11 2 17 3 2 2 2 4 14 2

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

was 62 percent in the East Liverpool area. 

This assumes that the workers identified with a 

large-city pottery resided in that city and those 

identified with a smalltown pottery did not reside in a nearby city—an assumption which 

seems to be supported by the information on the 

distance traveled to work at the pottery.

In traveling to work, the median distance reported was 2-3 miles, although somewhat more 

of the women than of the men traveled less than 

1 mile (table 4). The convenience of the pottery

location may help to explain the high proportion 

of women among the workers. In Crooksville, 

5 out of every 6 workers traveled no more than 

1 mile; these workers lived “within the shadow" 

of the pottery. In Steubenville, on the other 

hand, only about 1 worker in 8 lived that close to 

the pottery, and about 3 of every 4 lived at least 

4 miles away. In East Liverpool, which is a 

fairly small city, the workers tended to live 

closer to the pottery than in Steubenville, but 

not so close as in Crooksville.

The Pottery Job

Given the respondents’ personal characteristics, it is not surprising that half of them had 

been employed in the pottery from which they 

were laid off for at least 15 years. (See table

5.) Somewhat more of the women than of the 

men reported long service. This may reflect 

both the women’s greater concentration in the 

upper middle age brackets and the possibility 

that intermittent employment in the pottery 

impelled the men who were in a position to 

do so to seek steadier work elsewhere. The data 

on length of employment represent the number 

of years the respondents regarded themselves 

as attached to their pottery jobs, not necessarily full years of employment in the pottery.

The prevalence of long-service employees is 

consistent with the fact that 85 percent of the 

men and 72 percent of the women had worked 

at potteries that had been dissolved, voiding 

whatever seniority protection they might have 

acquired. The median length of service for the

former employees of dissolved potteries fell in 

the 15-19 years class, whereas for those of the 

undissolved companies it was in the 6-9 year 

class, and IY2 times as many of the former 

group had 10 or more years’ service.

These differences in length of service are also 

related to the somewhat higher skill level of the 

pottery jobs for those who had worked at dissolved potteries, although the larger proportion 

of women laid off by the undissolved potteries 

may also be a factor. Altogether, few of the 

laid-off workers had held skilled jobs. Nearly 

one-fifth had worked at unskilled jobs and 

almost two-thirds at semiskilled occupations 

(table 6). Far more women than men were 

found in the latter category.

Apparently many of the semiskilled women 

had been employed in jobs ranking fairly close 

to the bottom of the wage hierarchy, for fourfifths of them had reportedly earned less than 

$1.75 an hour in the last few months on their

58

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 5. P o t t e r y J o b T e n u r e o p D i s p l a c e d P o t t e r y W o r k e r s , b y S e x a n d O p e r a t i n g S t a t u s o f P o t t e r y ,

1 9 6 2 -6 3 S u r v e y

Pottery job tenure

Both sexes Male Female Dissolved potteries Undissolved potteries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total____________________ 1,468 100 762 100 706 100 1,155 100 313 100

Less than 1 year_______________ 58 4 43 6 15 2 27 2 31 10

1 to 2 years____ ________________ 110 8 63 8 47 7 50 4 60 19

3 to 5 years____________________ 141 10 81 11 60 9 101 9 40 13

6 to 9 years____________________ 129 9 77 10 52 7 104 9 25 8

10 to 14 years__________________ 274 19 119 16 155 22 223 19 51 16

15 to 19 years__________________ 280 19 119 16 161 23 235 20 45 14

20 to 29 years_________________ 234 16 116 15 118 17 194 17 40 13

30 to 39 years ____________ 167 11 91 12 76 11 155 13 12 4

40 years or more_______________ 62 4 47 6 15 2 60 5 2 0

Unreported____________________ 13 0 6 0 7 1 6 0 7 2

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Table 6. Skill Level of Pottery Jobs,1 Displaced Pottery Workers, by Sex and Operating Status of

Pottery, 1962-63 Survey

Skill level of pottery job 1

Both sexes Male Female Dissolved potteries Undissolved potteries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total____________________ 1,468 100 762 100 706 100 1,155 100 313 100

Unskilled______________________ 266 18 160 21 106 15 208 18 57 18

Semiskilled_____________________ 935 64 431 57 504 71 728 63 208 66

Skilled_________________________ 151 10 101 13 50 7 127 11 26 8

Both unskilled and semiskilled 8__ 32 2 18 2 14 2 23 2 4 1

Both semiskilled and skilled 8___ 13 0 10 1 3 0 11 1 2 0

Clerical, custodial, and other____ 21 1 18 2 3 0 23 2

Unreported and unidentifiable___ 50 3 24 3 26 4 35 3 16 5

8 Workers who reported they alternated between different jobs.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal

1 Reported job titles assigned to skill level on basis of Dictionary of

Occupational Titles, 2d edition. (Washington, Social Security Administration, 1949).

2 Less than 0.5 percent.

pottery jobs. (See table 7.) Less than onefourth of the men, on the other hand, reported 

such low wages, and over two-fifths of them 

earned $2 or more an hour. Some of the wagerate data apply to periods as much as 5 years 

prior to the 1962-63 survey. The wage distribution for men, however, is reasonably consistent 

with the average hourly earnings of production 

workers in the pottery and related products industry in 1960-62, when four-fifths of the layoffs took place. In those years, the industry 

average rose from $2.12 to $2.21.7

Women also worked fewer weeks during their 

last year on the pottery job, even allowing for 

the fact that twice as many women as men 

either did not report or said they did not remember how many weeks they had worked. 

For men who reported such information, the 

median fell in the 41-45 week class; for women, 

in the 31-35. (See table 8.) Thus, at least the 

latter fell considerably short of year-round employment.

7 Employment and Earnings Statistics for the United States,

1909-65, (BLS Bulletin 1312-3, December 1965), pp. 117-118.

totals.

The difference in the steadiness of employment for men and women may be related to 

the fact that dissolved potteries, which accounted for more of the men than of the women, 

provided about 15 weeks more of work than 

the undissolved, on the average. One could 

argue that a decision to shut down might have 

followed a period of slack work during which 

the men would have been less vulnerable to

Table 7. Hourly Wage Rates on Pottery Jobs,

Displaced Pottery Workers, by S e x , 1 9 6 2 -6 3

Survey

Hourly wage rates

Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total_________ 1,303 100 676 100 627 100

Less than $1.25______ 16 1 6 0 10 2

$1.25 to $1.49_______ 166 13 6 0 160 26

$1.50 to $1.74_______ 472 36 153 23 319 51

$1.75 to $1.99_______ 241 19 179 27 62 10

$2.00 to $2.24_______ 138 11 112 17 26 4

$2.25 to $2.49_______ 81 6 71 11 10 2

$2.50 to $2.74_______ 40 3 36 5 4 0

$2.75 to $2.99_ _____ 20 2 19 3 1 0

$3 00 or more 62 5 62 9

Other (as, on salary) __ 14 1 12 2 2

Unreported__________ 53 4 20 3 33 (1) 5K

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

59

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 8. Weeks Worked by Displaced Pottery Workers in Last Y ear on Pottery Job, by Sex and Operating

Status of Pottery, 1962-63 Survey

Weeks worked in last year 

on pottery job

Both sexes Male Female Dissolved potteries Undissolved potteries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total. ................................. 1,303 100 676 100 627 100 1,035 100 268 100

1 to 10 weeks__________________ 51 4 11 2 40 6 24 2 27 10

11 to 20 weeks_________________ 119 9 50 7 69 11 82 8 37 14

21 to 25 weeks___ _____________ 105 8 42 6 63 10 81 8 24 9

26 to 30 weeks_________________ 90 7 45 7 45 7 78 8 12 5

31 to 35 weeks_________________ 67 5 33 5 34 5 53 5 14 5

36 to 40 weeks_________________ 111 9 76 11 35 6 89 9 22 8

41 to 45 weeks___ _____________ 113 9 73 11 40 6 107 10 6 2

46 to 50 weeks_________________ 161 12 98 15 63 10 140 14 21 8

More than 50 weeks____________ 204 16 131 19 73 12 172 17 32 12

Unreported1___________________ 282 22 117 17 165 26 209 20 73 27

1 Includes those not answering, or not remembering, and those with under 1 year of employment.

Table 9. Wages Earned by Displaced Pottery Workers in Last Y ear on Pottery Job, by Sex and Operating

Status of Pottery, 1962-63 Survey

Wages in last year 

on pottery job

Both sexes Male Female Dissolved potteries Undissolved potteries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total____________________ 1,303 100 676 100 627 100 1,035 100 268 100

Less than $500_________________ 58 5 3 O

5

55 9 37 4 21 8

$500 to $1,000............................. . 128 10 31 97 16 93 9 35 13

$1,000 to $1,500______ _________ 143 11 51 8 92 15 107 10 36 13

$1,500 to $2,000___ .................... 131 10 55 8 76 12 104 10 27 10

$2,000 to $2,500......... ................... 158 12 60 9 98 16 131 13 27 10

$2,500 to $3,000..................... ....... 113 9 67 10 46 7 96 9 17 6

$3,000 to $4,000_______ _____ 195 15 179 27 16 3 175 17 20 8

$4,000 to $5,000________________ 95 7 91 14 4 (l) C1)

23

89 9 6 2

More than $5,000______________ 25 2 24 4 1 22 2 3 1

Unreported2___________________ 257 20 115 17 142 181 18 76 28

1 Less than 0.5 percent. Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal

2 Includes those not answering, or not remembering, and those with totals, 

under one year of employment.

temporary layoff. On the other hand, it might 

also be argued that management was making a 

maximum effort to save the enterprise and thus 

would have offered steadier employment to its 

women employees as well as the men.

Whatever the explanation, the combination of 

more intermittent employment and lower wage 

rates reduced women’s wages in their last year 

on the pottery job far below those of men. 

Again, allowance must be made for the fact that 

more of the women than of the men did not report, but this difference is probably not great 

enough to alter the conclusion. Among those 

who reported their annual earnings, the median 

earnings class for men is $3,000-3,999 and for 

women only $1,000-1,499 (table 9). Fortunately, many of these women were married and 

thus presumably their earnings represented 

secondary income for their families.

v

The male-female differential in annual earnings may also be related to the larger proportion of women associated with undissolved potteries. The median earnings class for former 

employees of dissolved potteries was $500 more 

than for those of the potteries that were still in 

operation.

From the data on annual earnings, hourly 

wages, and weeks of work, it may be inferred 

that the median workweek for men ranged from 

41 to 45 hours. For women, on the other hand, 

the median appears to have been between 22 

and 25 hours.

In summary, the loss of the pottery job was 

more costly to the men than the women, and 

likewise for the workers laid off at dissolved 

potteries as compared with the former employees of undissolved potteries.

60

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unemployment

The timing of the job loss accentuated its 

impact on the pottery workers, coming as it did 

during a period generally characterized by less 

than full employment. (See table 10.) Moreover, during the years in question, several of the 

pottery areas— Steubenville-Weirton, Cambridge, East Liverpool-Salem, for example— 

generally were classified as areas of substantial 

or substantial and persistent unemployment.8

In addition, except for entry jobs, few of the 

other industries in the region would appear to 

afford much opportunity for workers whose 

main— or only—experience had been in the pottery industry. The following distribution of 

employment in March 1962 for the Steubenville-Weirton area and for Columbiana County 

(East Liverpool) exemplifies the situation:

Number of employees, 

mid-March, 1962

Steubenville- Columbiana

Weirton County

All industries____________________ 46,782 17,490

Agricultural services, forestry and

fisheries _____________________________ 5

Mining _________________________________ 1,022 303

Contract construction___________________ 882 427

Manufacturing _________________________ 30,501 8,917

Food and kindred products________ 385

Stone, clay, and glass products____ 2,399

Primary metal industries _________ 22,204 630

Fabricated metal products_________ 1,486 1,358

M achinery__________________________ 2,937

Transportation and other public utilities 2,496 768

Wholesale tr a d e ________________________ 1,061 442

Retail tra d e ____________________________ 5,640 3,864

Finance, insurance, and real estate____ 1,083 668

Services ________________________________ 3,936 2,064

Other __________________________________ 32

N ote: Total excludes employment on railroads and self-employment; however, it includes industries for which data are not shown 

separately, as does the total for manufacturing. Dashes indicate 

data withheld to avoid disclosure of employer’s identity.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

County Business Patterns, First Quarter 1962, East North Central 

States, part 4B, table 2.

In these circumstances, it is noteworthy that 

less than half of the elderly pottery workers 

left the labor force when they lost their jobs. 

Some 70 percent of the men and 40 percent of 

the women age 65 and over looked for a job 

(table 11.) Most of the younger men and 

women who did not immediately search for 

another job said either that they expected to 

be recalled to the pottery job or that they

* See pertinent issues of Area Labor Market Trends and The Labor

Market and Employment Security (U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Employment Security).

Table 10. L a y o f f D a t e s of D is p l a c e d P o tte r y

Workers, by Operating Status of Pottery, 1962-63 

Survey

Dissolved Undissolved

Total potteries potteries

Layoff dates

Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Perber cent ber cent ber cent

Total_________ 1,468 100 1,155 100 313 100

Second half, 1957 10 1 10

_

First half, 1958 190 13 190 16

Second half, 1958 2 (i) 2 (!)

First half, 1959 37 2 11 1 26 8

Second half, 1959____ 91 6 85 7 6 2

First half, 1960______ 108 7 85 7 23 7

Second half, 1960____ 250 17 211 18 39 12

First half, 1961______ 68 5 39 3 29 9

Second half, 1961____ 58 4 58 18

First half, 1962______ 162 11 74 6 88 28

Second half, 1962____ 465 32 448 09 17 5

TTnrepnrt.eri a27 2 2 27 9

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

a These persons did not report the information in question; their layoff 

dates were somewhere between May 1959 and about December 1962.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

believed there were no job opportunities. Even 

though not actively looking for a job, these 

workers might reasonably be classified as in the 

labor force and unemployed, under definitions 

used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.9 Thus, 

it appears that about 95 percent of the younger 

men and 92 percent of the younger women remained in the labor force. The figure for women 

is lower because some of them “took up housework,” perhaps a reflection of a tendency for 

secondary earners to withdraw from the labor 

force if upon the loss of a job they see little 

alternative employment opportunity.

Extent of Unemployment

A small number of women and somewhat 

more men were spared a job search; they had 

another job immediately. Few of the workers 

who had to look for a job found one quickly. 

Nevertheless, half of the men who got a job did 

so within 18 weeks, and half of the women 

within 25 weeks (table 12). About a tenth of 

both the men and women searched for a job for 

a year or more before they succeeded, and 

nearly half of them had not found a job at the

* See “ Technical Note” in each issue of Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, under Concepts, unemployed persons. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics.

61

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
time of the survey. As expected, more of the 

younger workers found jobs and had a shorter 

search. Age differentials on this score were 

somewhat larger among the women.

The unsuccessful group of jobseekers and the 

groups with a short search are inflated by the 

inclusion of the employees of Company Z, most 

of whom had been laid off in late 1962 and had 

thus lost their jobs only a few weeks before 

they responded to the questionnaire. When the 

Company Z respondents are excluded, the percentage of unsuccessful jobseekers falls to 17 

for the men and 40 for the women. Similarly, 

the percentage of jobseekers who spent half a 

year or more in their search rises from 17 to 27 

percent of the men and from 19 to 26 percent 

of the women. For more than two-fifths of the 

men and two-thirds of the women, then, the 

conventional 26 weeks of benefits under unemployment insurance would have been inadequate 

to cover the entire period of unemployment.

The success and duration of the job search 

also differed between workers who had been laid 

off by dissolved potteries (again excluding Company Z) and those laid off by potteries that 

continued in operation. The search lasted 

longer for the former group, where the median 

for those reporting success fell in the 26-51 

week class, compared with the 9-18-week class 

for the displaced employees of undissolved potteries. This undoubtedly reflected greater competition for jobs following a plant shutdown in 

a small community. But one-third of the exemployees of the undissolved potteries did not 

find a job, compared with one-fourth of those of 

the dissolved potteries. Again, this difference 

may be related to the larger number of women 

in the former category. It may also indicate 

that a pottery in operation, to the extent that it 

has a choice, lays off its least efficient workers.

The length of time elapsing in the search for 

another job was significantly related to the 

worker’s age, education, and the skill level of 

his pottery job, but it was more closely related 

to the time when he lost his job and the location 

of the pottery where he had worked. The following tabulation, which shows the contingency 

coefficient derived from the chi-square test of

Table 11. Labor F orce Status Upon Layoff, Displaced Pottery Workers, by Sex and A ge, 1962-63 Survey

Labor force

All ages1 Under 45 years 45 to 64 years 65 years and over

status and sex

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Both Sexes

Total__________________________________________ 21,468 100 451 100 841 100 2 169 100

Looked for work______________________________________ 1,220

30

83 403 89 717 85 96 57

Had another job_ ___________________________________ 2 9 2 20 2 1 1

Did not look for work_______________ ___ ___________ 217 15 39 9 104 12 71 40

Expected recall to pottery_________________________ 70 4 17 4 40 5 12 7

Believed no job opportunity__________________ __ 3 (8)

3

2 (8) 1 (3)

Retired _________________________________________ 46 7 1 39 23

Physically disabled________________ ______________ 23 2 4 1 10 1 8 5

Took up housework________________ ______________ 24 2 8 2 14 2 2 1

Moved away_____________________________________ 47 3 6 1 30 3 10 6

Other___________________________________________ 4 (s)

100

2 (3)

100

2 (3)

100

Men

Total__________________________________________ 2 762 274 385 2100 100

Looked for work__________________ ___________ ______ 676 89 258 94 347 90 69 69

Had another job_ _ ___________________________ ______ 23 3 7 2 16 4

Did not look for work ____________________________ 62 8 9 3 22 6 30 30

Expected recall to pottery_______- ________________ 17 2 4 1 8 2 5 5

Believed no job opportunity___________ ___________ 2

(S) 3

2 1

Retired _________________________ _ _________ 23 3 1 20 20

Physically disabled__________________ ___________ 10 1 1 (3)

(3)

(8)

100

4 1 4 4

Moved away________________________ ____ _____ 8 1 1 6 1 1 1

Other____________________________________________ 2 (3)

100

1 1 (8)

100

Women

Total _________________________________________ 706 177 456 69 100

Looked for work_____________________________________ 544 77 145 82 370 81 27 39

Had another job ___________________________________ 7 1 2 1 4 1 1 1

Did not look for work___________________ _ _________ 155 22

Expected recall to pottery______________ __________ 53 7 13 7 32 7 7 10

Believed no job opportunity__________ __________ 1 (8)

3

1 (8) Retired _______________________ ____________ ____ 23 4 1 19 27

Physically disabled_________________ ___________ 13 2 3 2 6 1 4 6

Took up housework_________________ ____________ 24 3 8 4 14 3 2 3

Moved away___________________ ________________ 39 5 5 3 24 5 9 13

Other_________!__________________________________ 2 (8) 1 1 1 (3)

1 Includes respondents who did not report age (3 men and 7 women). Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal

2 Includes 1 man who did not report labor force status. totals.

3 Less than 0.5 percent.

62

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
significance between the indicated characteristic and duration of job search (excluding exemployees of Company Z), indicates the closeness of the relationships:

Number of pairs Contingency

Characteristic1 of characteristics coefficient

Age __________________________________ 758 .31

Education ___________________________ 734 .24

Skill level of pottery j o b ________ 723 .19

Date of loss of pottery j o b ______ 738 .34

Location of p ottery _____________ 756 .45

1 Based on data underlying tables 1, 2, 6, 19, and B-2, respectively. 

None of these circumstances, however, had a particularly strong 

influence on the length of the job search. The highest correlation 

was found with respect to the location of the pottery. This may 

imply that even elderly workers with little education or skill can 

get jobs fairly quickly if they live in an area where job opportunities are relatively plentiful or, conversely, that even young,

well-educated, and highly skilled workers will suffer prolonged unemployment unless they leave an area where few jobs are available.

Unemployment Benefits

Following the loss of their pottery jobs, over 

80 percent of the respondents received unemployment compensation, with the proportion being somewhat (but not significantly) higher for 

women than for men with the exception of those 

age 65 and over (table 13). More women said 

they received benefits than had reported an 

active search for work, tending to support the 

classification among the unemployed of workers 

who said they expected recall to the pottery or 

were not looking for work because they believed 

there were no job opportunities.

Among those who did not receive unemployment insurance benefits, the reason given by 

three-fifths of the men but less than one-fifth 

of the women was that they got another job. 

A majority of the women, but only one-fifth of 

the men, said they had no accrued benefits. 

Similarly, about twice as many women as men 

(25 and 13 percent) drew no benefits because 

they had retired or were unable to work, mirroring differences in the age distributions and, 

presumably, the need to work.

Not only did markedly fewer women than 

men draw no benefits because of finding a job, 

but the women also stayed on the benefit rolls 

longer than the men. Among those who reported the precise duration of benefits, the 

median fell in the 13-18-week class for men 

and in the 19-25-week class for women (table 

14). The difference was especially pronounced 

among workers reporting the receipt of benefits

for a period of 26-38 weeks. The maximum 

duration of benefits in the States where the 

laid-off workers had been employed is 26 weeks 

for Ohio and West Virginia and 30 weeks for 

Pennsylvania, although all three were among 

the States which had extended benefit programs 

during the 1958-59 and 1961-62 recessions.10 

A number of the pottery workers obviously 

benefited from such programs, but no attempt 

was made to measure the prevalence of extended benefits.

About three-fourths of the exemployees of 

Pottery Z had lost their jobs so recently that 

they were still receiving benefits at the time of 

the survey, but only 2 percent of the workers 

formerly employed by other companies were 

still on the benefit rolls (table 15). For a 

majority of the latter group (not quite half the 

men but over two-thirds of the women), payments had been terminated because they had 

exhausted their benefits. Among the men, however, a somewhat larger number reported that 

the reason for termination of benefits was reemployment; slightly more than half had either 

been recalled by the pottery or had found 

another job. Among the women, these reasons 

were given only half as often.

Similarly, the women received lower benefits 

than the men, with the median amounts falling 

in the $21-$25 and the $31-$35 class, respectively, among those who reported, as shown in 

table 16. (The unusually large percentage who 

did not report may indicate that many of the 

respondents regarded this as highly personal 

information.) Moreover, 70 percent of the 

women, but only 20 percent of the men received 

less than $26 a week. In part, the male-female 

differential may be traceable to variations in 

benefit formulas among the three States. Certainly, the effect of differences in benefit ceilings stands out clearly in the State benefit distributions for men, and the median benefit 

amounts differ, being $21-$25 in West Virginia, 

$26-$30 in Ohio, and $31-$35 in Pennsylvania. 

Such differences are the root of a longstanding 

complaint by unemployed pottery workers who 

have been employed in potteries in the West 

Virginia part of the East Liverpool area.

10 Harry Malisoff, The Financing of Extended Unemployment Insurance Benefits in the United States (Kalamazoo, Mich., The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, April 1963).

63

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 12. Duration and Success of Job Search by Displaced Pottery Workers, by Sex, A ge, and Pottery

Employer Group and Operating Status, 1962-63 Survey

All jobseekers Percent of jobless who—

Sex, age, and pottery 

employer group and 

operating status

Did not

Found job within—

Number Percent find

job

Found

job Less 

than 5 

weeks

5-8

weeks

9-18

weeks

19-25

weeks

26-51

weeks

52-103

weeks

104 

weeks 

or more

Did not 

report

All Potteries

Both sexes

All ages____________________ 1,220 100 46 51 12 6 10 5 8 7 2 3

403 100 38 57 16 9 11 5 7 7 2 4

45 to 64 years_____________________ 717 100 46 51 11 4 11 5 9 8 2 3

65 years and over_________________ 96 100 71 27 6 2 5 6 3 4 2

Men

Ail ages____________________ 676 100 38 59 18 7 11 6 7 8 2 3

Under 45 years____________________ 258 100 33 64 21 11 10 6 6 7 3 3

347 100 36 61 18 5 13 6 9 8 2 3

69 100 67 32 9 3 6 7 3 4 1

Women

544 100 55 41 5 3 10 4 10 7 2 3

Under 45 years____________________ 145 100 48 46

— __

12 4 10 6 2

-

370 100 56 41 4 3 9 4 10 8 3 3

27 100 81 15 4 4 4 4 4

Potteries Other T han Company Z

Both sexes

All ages____________________ 794 100 28 67 13 6 14 7 12 11 3 4

Under 45 years____________________ 232 100 15 81 19 10 17 8 11 12 4 4

45 to 64 y ea rs_________ _________ 486 100 29 67 12 5 14 7 14 12 3 4

65 years and o v e r --__ __________ 73 100 66 29 7 3 3 7 4 5 5

Men

All ages____________________ 415 100 17 79 21 8 15 9 11 13 3 4

Under 45 years____________________ 144 100 8 89 24 14 15 8 9 14 5 3

45 to 64 y ea rs____________________ 219 100 14 82 21 5 17 9 13 13 3 4

65 years and over- - _______________ 50 100 60 36 10 4 4 8 4 6 4

Women

All ages____________________ 379 100 40 55 5 4 13 6 13 10 3 5

Under 45 years____________________ 88 100 27 67 9 3 20 8 14 9 3 6

45 to 64 y ea rs___________________ 267 100 41 55 4 4 12 6 14 11 4 4

65 years and over_________________ 23 100 78 13 4 4 4 9

Company Z 

Both sexes

All ages____________________ 426 100 78 21 11 5 4 (*) 1 ___ « _ _ _

— _____

Under 45 years____________________ 171 100 72 27 7 3 2 2 1

45 to 64 years_____________________ 231 100 83 17 9 3 3 0) 0) 0) 65 years and over_________________ 23 100 74 22 9 13 4

Other Dissolved Potteries

Both sexes

All ages___ _________________ 553 100 26 70 12 5 10 8 15 15 4 4

Under 45 years____________________ 137 100 12 82 14 9 14 9 12 18 6 6

45 to 64 years ____________ 351 100 24 72 13 3 11 8 18 15 5 4

65 years and over_________________ 63 100 68 30 8 2 3 10 3 5 2

Undissolved Potteries

Both sexes

All ages____________________ 241 100 34 62 15 9 22 6 6 4 i 4

Under 45 years___________________ 95 100 21 76 24 11 21 7 7 3 2 3

45 to 64 years __________________ 135 100 40 56 10 8 24 5 4 4 1 4

65 years and over_________________ 10 100 60 30 10 10 10 10

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of rounding and because some totals include persons not shown separately 

since they did not report age.

Financial Adjustments to Unemployment

Among the respondents who drew unemployment benefits and those who did not but who 

were looking for jobs (a total of 1,169 on part 

II of the questionnaire), one-fifth indicated that 

they drew on personal savings during their 

period of joblessness.11 The proportion was *

n Information on financial adjustments to unemployment was 

not requested of the respondents who said that they did not look 

for work upon losing their pottery jobs.

about the same for single and married persons, 

but was twice as high for men as for women 

(26 and 13 percent of the respective groups of 

578 and 591). Only two-thirds of those who 

used savings reported on the amount; the 

median for this group was $300-500. Likewise, 

16 percent did not report whether they had exhausted their savings, but 38 percent said that 

they did and 46 percent that they did not.

About 6 percent of the designated respondents reported that they borrowed money, but

64

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 13. Incidence of Receipt of Unemployment Benefits and Reasons for Nonreceipt A mong Displaced

Pottery Workers, by Sex and A ge, 1962-63 Survey

Sex and age

Both sexes Men Women

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

65

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

65

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

65

years

65

years'-

and

over

All workers:1

Number_____________ __________ 1,468 451 841 169 762 274 385 100 706 177 456 69

Percent_________________________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Percent of workers who:

Received benefits- ___________ 81 78 85 70 79 76 82 74 84 83 88 64

Did not receive benefits_______ 18 21 14 29 20 22 17 25 16 19 11 35

Number of nonrecipients...... ......... .. 264 94 119 49 154 61 67 25 110 33 52 24

Percent of nonrecipients reporting:

Total, all reasons_____________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Got job______________________ 42 52 50 6 60 67 73 12 17 24 19

No accrued benefits___________ 34 37 35 27 20 21 18 24 54 67 58 29

Retired_______________________ 11 3 53 9 1 52 14 4 54

Not able to work____________ 7 2 8 12 4 4 8 11 6 12 17

Other reasons, including moved

away_______________________ 6 8 5 2 7 11 2 4 4 3 7 6

1 Includes small number of persons (about 1 percent of each category) 

who did not report whether they received benefits.

N ote: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because o f 

rounding and because some totals include persons not shown 

separately since they did not report age.

about one-fourth of these did not report the 

amount borrowed. Among the few who did, 

the median amount was $300-500.

Some 16 percent drew on other nonroutine 

sources of income or made unusual budgetary 

adjustments during their unemployment. Most 

frequently (about 6 percent), these persons reported, “ We got help from private people outside our household.” About one-fourth of the 

total reported receiving noncash public assistance, such as free food. No more than 2 percent reported each of the following: “We

moved to cheaper housing,” “We sold our property,” or “ We got cash assistance from a public 

or private welfare agency.”

The comparative infrequency of extraordinary consumption or dissaving patterns supports the view that these pottery workers had

become so inured to layoffs that they adjusted 

to recurring spells of unemployment in quite 

routine fashion.

Table 14. Weeks of Unemployment Benefits Drawn

by Displaced Pottery Workers, by Sex, 1962-63 

Survey

Weeks of 

unemployment 

benefits drawn

Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total_________ 1,189 100 599 100 590 100

Have just applied------ 17 1 12 2 5 0) 1 or 2 weeks_________ 30 3 24 4 6 1

3 or 4 weeks_________ 99 8 59 10 40 7

5 to 8 weeks_________ 184 16 104 17 80 14

9 to 12 weeks________ 115 10 65 11 50 9

13 to 18 weeks-........ - 129 11 71 12 58 10

19 to 25 weeks__ ____ 101 9 54 9 47 8

26 to 38 weeks______ 226 19 82 14 144 24

39 or more weeks____ 181 15 87 15 94 16

“ Full amount due” __ 86 7 33 6 53 9

Unreported_________ 21 2 8 1 13 2

1 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equali 

totals.

65

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 15. Current Receipt op Unemployment Benefits and Reasons for Benefit Termination A mong

Displaced Pottery Workers, by Sex, A ge, and Selected E mployer Group, 1962-63 Survey

Employer groups, current 

benefit status, and reason

Both sexes Male Female

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to

65

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

65

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

65

years

65

years

and

over

All Potteries

Total receiving benefits after layoff:

Number________________________ 1,189 353 713 118 599 209 314 74 590 144 399 44

Percent_________________________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Still receiving benefits_____________ 28 29 28 28 29 32 30 20 27 24 27 49

Not receiving benefits:

Benefits exhausted____________ 42 36 43 55 32 26 28 62 52 49 54 52

Employed:

Found job________________ 24 29 24 11 34 36 36 15 14 18 14 5

Recalled by p ottery______ 4 5 4 0 4 5 4 4 4 4 3

Other reasons_________________ 2 2 0 5 1 0 0 3 2 3 0 9

Current status unreported_________ 01) 0 0) 0 1 0

Potteries Other T han C ompany Z

Total receiving benefits after layoff:

Number________________________ 767 203 484 77 367 117 197 51 400 86 287 26

Percent_________________________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Still receiving benefits- ___________ 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 3

Not receiving benefits:

Benefits exhausted____________ 58 46 59 83 47 39 43 80 68 55 70 88

Employed:

Found job________________ 32 41 31 13 44 49 49 16 21 31 20 8

Recalled by pottery 6 8 5 1 7 9 7 5 7 4 4

Other reasons ____ _______ 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 5 2

Current status unreported 0 0 0

l 0)

1 0

1 Less than 0.5 percent. ing and because some totals include persons not shown separately

N o te: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of roundTable 16. Weekly Unemployment Benefits of Displaced Pottery Workers, Both Sexes and Males, by

State, 1962-63 Survey

Weekly

unemployment

benefit

Both sexes Males

Total Ohio West Virginia Pennsylvania Total Ohio West Virginia Pennsylvania

Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Perber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Total___ 1,067 100 571 100 414 100 82 100 532 100 260 100 227 100 45 100

$1S nr Ifiss 67 7 21 4 45 11 1 1 15 3 4 1 11 5

$16 to $20- ___ 110 10 40 7 67 16 3 4 18 3 3 1 14 6 1 2

$21 to $25_____ 162 15 69 12 87 21 6 8 27 5 6 2 19 8 2 4

$26 to $30_____ 146 14 97 17 42 10 7 9 49 9 25 10 23 10 1 2

$31 to $35_____ 253 24 88 15 142 34 23 28 202 38 64 25 131 58 7 16

$36 to $40 75 7 39 7 36 44 60 11 34 13 26 58

$41 or more___ 80 7 80 14 77 14 77 30

Unreported------ 174 16 137 24 31 7 6 7 84 16 47 19 29 13 8 18

1 N o te: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

The New Job

At the time of the response to part I of the 

questionnaire, which extended from October 

1962 through March 1963, one-third of the men 

and one-fourth of the women were still looking 

for work (table 17). This category includes a 

small number who qualified the answer that 

they were employed, suggesting that they were 

looking for a full-time job while doing casual 

or part-time work or that they were temporarily away (perhaps laid off) from their current job.

The situation was appreciably better among 

the workers who had worked at potteries other 

than Company Z, which, it will be recalled, had 

not shut down until late 1962. Nearly threefourths of these men and over two-fifths of 

these women were at work. About 15 percent

6 6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of both the men and the women had either retired or reported that they were unable to work, 

including a sizable number of women in the 

45-64 age group. An additional one-fourth of 

the women reported they were “ doing own 

housework.” But about 1 of every 8 men and 1 

of every 6 women were still looking for work, 

implying an unemployment rate of more than 

twice the national rate during the years 1958- 

62. Most of the difference may be attributable 

to the high proportion of workers age 45 and 

over among the pottery workers, even though 

many of those who had reached age 65 had left 

the labor force. Of those still in the labor force, 

about three-fourths were in this age group, 

compared with about two-fifths of the U.S. 

labor force. Nationally, this group has accounted for 75-80 percent of all long-term unemployment (15 weeks or more) in recent 

years.12

12 See “ Long-Term Unemployment in the 1960’s,” Monthly Labor

Review, September 1965, p. 1073.

As for the former employees of Company Z, 

only 25 percent of the men and 7 percent of the 

women had found new jobs in the 2-5 month 

interval between layoff and answering the questionnaire. Two-thirds of the men and more 

than two-fifths of the women were still seeking 

work. But over half of the women had left the 

labor force.

There was little further change in the overall 

employment situation by the time the workers 

answered part II of the questionnaire—from 1 

to 5 months after completing part I.13 *S 1 Only 3 

percent had changed from not working to working, and 4 percent from working (including the 

qualified answers) to not working.

In fact, three-fifths of the respondents who 

were working had been on their current jobs 

(or businesses) for a year or more.

13 Information for both parts of the questionnaire was obtained

simultaneously from 68 workers through personal interview, as

indicated in appendix B.

T able 17. Cu r r e n t L abor F orce S t a t u s of D isplaced P ottery W orkers b y S e x , A ge, a n d P o ttery E m p lo ye r

Group, 1962-63 S u r v e y

Pottery employer group and 

current labor force status

Both sexes Male Female

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

64

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

64

years

65

years

and

over

All

ages

Under

45

years

45 to 

64

years

65

years

and

over

A ll Potteries

Total: Number---------------------------- 1,468 451 841 169 762 274 385 100 706 177 456 69

Percent. _ ______________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Working__________________________ 44 52 46 11 54 61 59 15 32 38 35 4

Qualified answer1_________________ 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 1

Not working._ ----------------- _ __ 55 47 52 88 44 38 38 84 66 60 64 94

Total not working or qualifying

answer: Number_______________ 829 217 456 151 352 108 158 85 477 109 298 66

Percent. _____________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Looking for work _____________ __ 49 63 53 15 70 89 83 21 34 38 38 8

Believe no job opportunity_________ 1 1 2 (2) 1 (2) 3 1 2 1 2

Retired_____________ ________ 16 7 68 20 6 73 13 7 62

Unable to work____ _______________ 5 4 6 4 5 4 7 5 5 5 6 3

Doing own housework____________ 27 28 32 11 (2) (2) 46 55 48 24

Other status or unreported_________ 2 4 (2) 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 (2) 2

Potteries Other T han Company Z

Total: Number---------------------------- 947 258 560 124 467 151 241 72 480 107 319 52

Percent_________ _________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Working---------------------------------------- 58 74 61 10 72 85 80 14 45 57 47 6

Qualified answer___________________ 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

Not working. ____________________ 40 24 36 87 26 13 17 83 53 41 51 92

Total not working or qualifying

answer: Number_______________ 398 68 216 111 132 22 47 62 266 46 169 49

Percent. _____________ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Looking for work__________________ 31 41 39 7 42 64 68 13 26 30 31

Believe no job opportunity 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 (2) 2

Retired 27 11 77 41 13 77 20 ^ 10 76

Unable to work------------------------------ 8 9 10 4 10 14 15 5 7 7 9 2

Doing own housework 31 41 38 9 (2) 2 45 61 49 18

Other status or unreported 2 7 3 W 5 23 3 (2) 2

1 Answers suggesting that respondent was on temporary layoff or was 

looking for full-time job while doing casual or part-time work.

2 Less than 0.5 percent.

Note: Sums of individual items may not equal totals because of 

rounding and because some totals include persons not shown 

separately since they did not report age.

67

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Workers 1

Tenure in current employment

Total ___________________

3 years or m o re --------------------

2 years but under 3 y e a r s___

1% years but under 2 years___

1 year but under 1% years____

6 to 11 m on th s______________

1 to 5 m onths________________

Under 1 m onth_______________

Unreported __________________

Number Percent

602 100

89 15

85 14

59 10

128 21

76 13

112 19

12 2

41 7

1 Excludes 63 workers who had been recalled to their pottery 

jobs; includes all others working at the time of response o f part 

I o f questionnaire, whether for an employer or self-employed.

Since 65 percent of them still held the first job 

they had gotten after leaving the pottery, 

tenure on the current job tended to be correlated with the date of separation from the 

pottery job.14

Nearly three-fourths of the employed 

workers had gotten their new jobs through 

leads from friends or relatives or by direct 

application to the employer, as shown in the 

following tabulation:

Workers 1

Source of job lead Number Percent

Total _________________________________ 582 100

Friend or relative__________________________ 223 38

Application at plant (shop, office) _________ 195 34

Former em ployer___________________________ 52 9

Contact initiated by new em ployer_________ 33 6

State employment service___________________ 20 3

Labor union of which a m em ber----------------- 19 3

Newspaper advertisement---------------------------- 14 2

Other2 _____________________________________ 22 4

Unreported ________________________________ 4 (3)

1 Excludes 63 workers recalled to their pottery jobs and 19 engaged exclusively in self-employment.

* Includes 18 workers employed on casual basis.

8 Less than 1 percent.

These findings, in common with those of numerous other sources, show little reliance on the 

public employment service, presumably for the 

conventional reasons. In situations like that observed here, however, even intensive placement 

efforts apparently would be unavailing without 

action to develop jobs and surmount age barriers.

Type of Employment

Of the 665 persons who were working (including the 26 who gave qualified answers), all 

but 3 percent were working for an employer 

(on a casual basis in a few instances, such as 

housework by the day). Only 20 respondents 

were solely dependent on self-employment in a

14 The contingency coefficient of the chi-square test of 553 paired 

items was 0.60.

business or on a farm. An additional 19 persons 

were operating such an enterprise, as well as 

working for an employer. Of these 39, 25 were 

farming and 11 were operating a retail establishment of some kind—in all but two instances 

within 25 miles of the pottery community. 

These findings support Haber’s proposition 

that “displaced workers become self-employed 

only in special instances.” 15 6 Few of the respondents in this study appeared to have either 

the resources or the capacity for profitable selfemployment.

Besides the 19 persons who worked for an 

employer as well as themselves, 30 others reported holding two jobs. Specific secondary jobs 

(like “pumping gas at a gas station” ) were 

reported by 16; 8 indicated some kind of casual 

employment, and 4 used the term “ odd jobs” to 

describe their secondary employment. Thus, 

although the extent of dual jobholding was 

slightly higher than that customarily observed 

in the periodic surveys of multiple jobholding,16 

the subjects of this study were overwhelmingly 

dependent upon holding a single job.

Of the 645 persons who were working for an 

employer, 35 percent held a job with the same 

occupational title as that from which they were 

separated. Half of these (63 in number) had 

been recalled to their pottery jobs—by a successor company, in some cases. Some 17 percent of the 645 had different jobs, although in 

the clay-products industry, which includes the 

manufacture of earthenware. The remainder 

(nearly half) were working in some other industry. Among the men, 13 percent were working at a different job in the clay-products 

industry and 52 percent were working in 

another industry. For the women, the respective percentages were 24 and 41. These differences may reflect the nature of job openings 

or a more extensive job search by the men.

The three potteries (S, T, and X) that were 

outside the area within 35 miles of East Liverpool accounted for 259 of the laid-off pottery 

workers who had found jobs with an employer. 

These potteries had all been dissolved and had 

been located beyond convenient commuting dis15 The Impact of Technological Change (Kalamazoo, Mich., The 

Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, September 1963), p. 37.

16 See, for example, “ Multiple Jobholders in May 1963,*’ Monthly

Labor Review, March 1964, pp. 249-257.

6 8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tance of other potteries (at least those in the 

study). Only half as many of these workers 

had the same job or another job in the clayproducts industry—26 percent compared with 

52 percent of the total. For the former employees of the 10 other potteries, the comparable 

figure was 68 percent. Thus, in areas where 

pottery or similar jobs were available, fully 

two-thirds of the workers went back to work at 

jobs with which they had some familiarity.

Those who took jobs in other industries most 

commonly reported they were working as 

laborers. Other occupations mentioned frequently were janitor (custodian), aide or 

kitchen worker in a hospital, store clerk, domestic or related work, guard, gas station attendant, bartender, and truckdriver (or cabdriver). A significant number of respondents 

reported various jobs that suggest conventional 

factory operations. Finally, hospitals, asylums, 

and similar types of institutions seemed to provide large number of jobs for these workers.

In their own opinion, a majority of the 

workers (51 percent) had jobs that required 

about the same skill as their pottery jobs.17 

Some 24 percent said they needed less skill, 21 

percent more, and 4 percent said they could not 

compare the skills. The comparisons reported 

by men and women did not differ significantly. 

Since large numbers of the former pottery 

workers had held unskilled or semiskilled jobs, 

little decline might have been expected in the 

skill level of their new jobs.

There was, however, some decline in the wage 

rates on the new jobs, although the median 

wage classes were the same as for the pottery 

jobs. Somewhat more of the men who had 

earned $2.50 or more an hour in the pottery had 

found new jobs than the lower paid men, but 

there was not much of a tendency for men to 

maintain their relative wage standing.18 The 

principal shift in the distribution of the men’s 

wage rates was from the $1.50-$2.24 brackets 

toward the lower end of the wage scale (table 

18). Among the women, a marked increase in

17 Their answers were not related to the skill classifications of 

their pottery jobs (table 6) because it is doubtful that their judgment of skill differentials would coincide with the standards underlying the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which was used to 

classify the pottery jobs.

18 Direct comparisons for 317 men showed a contingency coefficient

of 0.52 in the chi-square test of significance.

the proportion earning less than $1.25 an hour 

occurred at the expense of the $1.25-$1.74 

brackets, but again relative standing generally 

was not maintained.19

Individual comparisons for those who reported their wages on both jobs showed that 40 

percent were earning less on the new job, and 

32 percent were earning more. The most extreme deterioration in wages occurred among 

respondents identified with the three potteries 

(S, T, and X) outside the East Liverpool area, 

who, it will be recalled, had more frequently 

found jobs outside the clay-products industry. 

Wage reductions were nearly 1% times more 

numerous among this group, being reported by 

57 percent of those who were employed. The 

disproportionate wage cuts may indicate inferior job opportunities in the less urbanized 

areas of the region, especially for workers who 

lack experience in the kind of work that is to 

be had.

Lower wage rates on the new job did not 

necessarily entail a proportionate reduction in 

weekly earnings. As the following tabulation 

shows, three-fourths of both the men and 

women reported working at least 40 hours a 

week on the new job:

Workers 1

Weekly hours of work Number Percent

Total _ 

More than 42

41-42 _______

40 __________

35-39 _______

80-34 _______

20-29 _______

10-19 _______

Less than 10 . 

Unreported —

552 100

130 24

7 1

280 51

34 6

25 5

20 4

7 1

5 1

44 8

1 Excludes a few employed workers who responded to part I 

but not part II of questionnaire; see appendix B.

Note: Because of rounding, sums o f individual items may not 

equal totals.

Especially for the women, the new jobs represented a substantially longer workweek. In 

fact, when asked about the comparative steadiness of their current employment and their 

pottery jobs, only 10 percent of both men and 

women answered less steady; 57 percent replied more steady.

19 Correlation was not tested separately for women, but the contingency coefficient of comparisons for a combined total of the 

317 men (see preceding footnote) and 168 women was slightly 

lower (0.48) than that for men alone.

69

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T ab le 18. H o u r ly W age R ate s o n Cu r r e n t Job a n d o n P o ttery Job for R e e m p l o y m e n t D isplaced P ottery

W orkers, b y Se x , 1962-63 S u r v e y

Current job Pottery job

Hourly wage rates Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total---------------------------------- 552 100 362 100 190 100 552 100 362 100 190 100

Less than $1.25___________________ 68 12 21 6 47 25 10 2 46 1 6 3

$1.25 to $1.49_____________________ 61 11 38 11 23 12 55 10 4 1 51 27

$1.50 to $1.74_____________________ 115 21 55 15 60 32 157 28 66 18 91 48

$1.75 to $1.99_____________________ 94 17 64 18 30 16 114 21 95 26 19 10

$2.00 to $2.24_____________________ 58 11 48 13 10 5 72 13 63 17 9 5

$2.25 to $2.49_____________________ 34 6 32 9 2 1 36 7 33 9 3 2

$2.50 to $2.74_____________________ 26 5 25 7 1 0) 26 5 25 7 1 (0

$2.75 to $2.99_____________________ 17 3 17 5 14 3 14 4

$3.00 or more_____________________ 29 5 28 8 1 (i) 43 8 43 12

Other (as, on salary)______________ 28 5 18 5 10 5 4 0) 4 1

Unreported_______________________ 22 4 16 4 6 3 21 4 11 3 10 5

1 Less than 0.5 percent. Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

The location of their new jobs was, however, 

somewhat less convenient for a sizable number 

of the reemployed. One-third of the men and 

one-fourth of the women were working outside 

the community where they had worked in the 

pottery (table 19). Generally, the distances 

from the pottery job were not great. Less than 

10 percent had gone more than 50 miles afield. 

As might have been expected, this group was 

predominantly comprised of men.

Naturally, then, there were few pronounced 

differences in the distances traveled to work at 

the new job and at the old job. (See table 20.) 

Most notably, the percentage of men traveling 

over 10 miles nearly doubled. There was also 

some increase in the proportion of women 

traveling 6-25 miles. Individual comparisons 

disclosed a moderate tendency for those who 

traveled relatively long distances to the pottery

T ab le 19. Co m p a r a tiv e L o c a t io n of Cu r r e n t Job a n d

P ottery J ob, D isplac ed P o ttery W o rk er s, b y Se x ,

1962-63 S u r v e y i

Comparative job 

location

Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total_________ 645 100 409 100 236 100

Same city___________

Outside of city:

449 70 272 67 177 75

25 miles or less__ 111 17 69 17 42 18

25-50 miles_____ 25 4 22 5 3 1

50-100 miles____

More than

33 5 27 7 6 3

100 miles_____ 23 4 16 4 7 3

Unreported__________ 4 Q) 3 (2) 1 (2)

1 Distances are as-the-crow-flies. They were calculated by applying a 

compass to an ordinary highway map.

2 Less than 0.5 percent.

to do likewise on their new jobs and for those 

who lived closer to the pottery to have a new 

job not far from home.20

20 The contingency coefficient of the chi-square test of significance 

between 524 paired items was 0.66.

T a b l e 20. Co m p ar a tiv e D is t a n c e T raveled to W o rk o n Cu rr en t J ob a n d P o ttery J ob, D isplaced P o ttery

W ork er s, b y S e x , 1962-63 S u rvey

Distance traveled

Current job Pottery job

Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total___________________________________ 552 100 362 100 190 100 552 100 362 100 190 100

Less than H mile______________________________ 85 15 47 13 38 20 109 20 69 19 40 21

Yl mile but less than 1 mile_____________________ 55 10 36 10 19 10 63 11 36 10 27 14

1 mile_________________________________________ 97 18 67 19 30 16 122 22 81 22 41 22

2-3 miles______________________________________ 86 15 58 16 28 14 74 13 51 14 23 12

4-5 miles________ ______________________________ 50 9 29 8 21 12 60 11 37 10 23 12

6-10 miles- ___________________________________ 68 12 39 11 29 15 65 12 44 12 21 11

11-25 miles____________________________________ 58 11 43 12 15 8 30 5 21 6 9 5

More than 25 miles- _ -------------------------------------- 32 6 30 8 2 1 20 4 18 5 2 1

Unreported____________________________________ 21 4 13 4 8 4 9 2 5 1 4 2

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

70

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Attitudes and Aspirations

As a supplement to the factual information 

about the “before and after” situation of the 

laid-off pottery workers, some attempt was 

made to assess reactions of a less tangible or 

more personal nature to their changed status.

Dissatisfaction with their present employment situation was evident in their responses to 

questions about their interest in job training 

and their willingness to move if they were 

offered a job comparable to their pottery work. 

With respect to training, about three-fourths of 

the men and two-thirds of the women expressed 

interest, although a sizable proportion of this 

group had reservations, as shown in the following tabulation:

Both sexes Male Female

Interest in training Num­ Per­ Num­ Per­ Num­ Perber cent ber cent ber cent

T o ta l____________ 1,303 100 676 100 627 100

Yes ____________________ 549 42 321 48 228 37

Yes, with reservations__ 406 31 197 29 209 34

No and unreported____ 348 27 158 23 190 30

Note: Because of rounding, sums of items may not equal totals.

By far, the most frequent reason underlying 

the reservations about training was advanced 

age. Other commonly specified reasons were 

health, and possible location of the training 

program.

Most frequently (on the order of 175-200 of 

those interested), the former pottery workers 

expressed a desire for any kind of training 

that would lead to successful employment. 

Specific occupations in which training was most 

often desired included mechanic and practical 

nurse (frequency order of 30-40), machinist 

and electronic work (20-30), and welder, 

carpenter, home appliance repairman, electrician, and plumber (10-20).

Substantial, although smaller, proportions of 

the workers said they would be willing to move 

out of the area in order to get a job at the same 

rate of pay received in the pottery. Only a 

fourth of the men and a tenth of the women 

were willing without reservations, and about a 

third of both men and women expressed reservations, as shown below:

Willingness to accept Both sexes Male Female

job elsewhere at Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Perpottery rate-of-pay ber cent ber cent ber cent

Total ____________ 1,303 100 676 100 627 100

Yes ____________________ 249 19 183 27 63 10

Yes, with reservations__ 419 32 234 35 185 30

No and unreported____ 638 49 259 38 379 60

Thus, about two-fifths of the men and threefifths of the women were not willing to move 

(including those who did not report, which was 

assumed to indicate unwillingness).

Since the reasons for their unwillingness to 

move given by this group in some instances 

could be classified only by inference, the following array of the frequency with which different 

reasons were reported must be regarded as an 

approximation:

Reason for reservation Frequency class

Homeownership ____________________________________ 150-200

Considerations of distance, location, or clim ate____ 125-150

Wages would be too l o w ___________________________ 50-75

Cannot afford to move _______________________________ 50-75

Spouse works within area of present residence____ 50-75

Present job (or work) is satisfactory ______________ 50-75

Preference for not leaving present area of residence- 50-75

Poor health ___________________________________________ 50-75

Retired _______________________________________________ 50-75

Disadvantaged by advanced age _____________________ 50-75

Contingent upon type or physical conditions of work 50-75

Children in school in area of present residence_____ 25-50

Steadiness of proposed j o b ____________________________ 25-50

Cost of living at new job location____________________ 25-50

As indicated, the most prominent reason for unwillingness to move was homeownership. This, 

as well as a good many of the other reasons 

shown, suggests a lack of sensitivity even to a 

somewhat higher wage that might be earned 

elsewhere. Although it is uncertain that these 

workers would have the same reaction to a bona 

fide job offer as to a hypothetical question, it 

seems reasonable to infer that jobs must be 

brought to the worker, rather than vice versa, 

if many of the unemployed pottery workers are 

to find employment.

In comments which the respondents were invited to make at the end of the questionnaire, 

many of them expressed grievances against 

pottery management, the Government, city officials and other functionaries, the Potters’ 

union, certain kinds of pottery employees, and 

the employment situation in the area. Very few 

indicated an optimistic outlook.

71

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The following sampling of these comments is 

believed to be representative, although it may 

be somewhat biased toward the more interesting 

and dramatic:

Jobs at the potteries

When I was laid off I only had 12 years of seniority.

Now the ------ (pottery) has decorators (a highly

skilled job classification) laid off with 20 years of 

seniority (female, age-class—65 and over, married).

When an order is gotten by the potteries, there is a 

grand rush “to get it out.” Then there is more unemployment for everyone because many are hired for a 

short period; but then all but a few are laid off (male, 

age-class—45-54, married).

We people of the form er------ (pottery) cannot understand the company’s reason for liquidating its business because of foreign imports and labor costs when 

the other potteries around here, in Salem, Sebring, 

East Palestine, Lincoln, 111.; and more are working to 

capacity (male, age-class— 45-54, married).

Employment at th e ------ (pottery) a t------ (city) is

very satisfactory. I have been receiving premium hours 

almost ever since the ------ (pottery) started to operate. The supervision has been very good, and we all 

look forward to a very prosperous future (male, ageclass— 62-64, married).

I go t o ------ (city) to work at my trade every day in

the pottery there— 84 miles away (female, age-class— 

55-61, married).

The work at most of the potteries, especially ------

(pottery), is very uncertain. One month you have good 

work and all at once you are laid off. One year you may 

work 3 months, the next 9 or 10. You never know what 

to expect (male, age-class—62-64, married).

They should pass a law for social security people to 

be laid off first. At the pottery . . . half of the people 

who had most seniority were drawing social security. . . . I realize it may be hard for people to live on 

social security, but they . . . have a certain amount of 

income that they can depend upon. . . . We have 

nothing when our unemployment compensation expires 

(female, age-class—35-44, married).

Seventy percent of the pottery workers have their 

wives working. At least 30 percent of the wives work 

in potteries. Lack of seniority in a slack period causes 

a layoff which amounts to about 30 percent of the 

workers. This group will not average over 20 hours a 

week over a 12-month period (male, age-class—65 and 

over, married).

At present the employees a t------ (pottery) are from

out of town, from an area of 15 to 20 miles. The

women of ------ (this city) are unemployed. I think

they should hire local help (female, age-class— 62-64, 

not married).

I am working at ------ (pottery). We are working

overtime most every week. Stop it (the overtime work)

and put more people to work (male, age-class— 62-64, 

marital status unreported).

If people past 65 would retire, it would create many 

jobs in the pottery industry. In my trade alone there 

are many past 70 still working. I am still a young 

man (44) but I have tried many places other than 

pottery work and they tell me I am too old (male, ageclass—35-44, married).

I’m laid off again due to a new automatic packer put

in use at th e ------ (pottery). So I probably will have

to use up the rest of my savings (male, age-class— 

45-54, married).

. . . due to a machine called a hot press which puts 

out more ware than the decal girls did by hand. This 

machine has replaced six decal machines which operated with seven girls for each decal machine (female, 

age-class—55-61, married).

. . . due to foreign imports, mainly Japanese ware 

(this city) is nothing compared to what it was. We 

used to have around 35 potteries (in the general area) 

but now we have only 6. So you can see what Japanese 

imports have done to our community. I think the 

Government should pay a quota to all industries hurt 

by Japanese imports (male, age-class— 45-54, married).

Last year, 1962, I worked at four different jobs and 

in three different States to make $6,000. Three of 

those jobs were kiln-placing. The other was with 

the steel company. I don’t like to work this way, but 

because of the insecurity of the potteries, I have to 

work this way or just quit looking for work and draw 

unemployment compensation (male, age-class—45-54, 

not married).

Pottery Jobs and the Rule of Seniority

I am a gold stamper. There is no job of this kind at 

present. Under the seniority of the Potters’ union I 

must stick to my own trade. If no stamping, no work. 

Do you think this rule is right? I have worked there 

about 7 years, and yet a new employee can come in 

and get a job in preference to me. I am a member in 

good standing, yet (male, age-class—62-64, married).

In my opinion, the main trouble is seniority in the 

pottery industry. Prior to 1958, any journeyman or 

person who served his apprenticeship after 6 months 

of work in any plant was considered a steady employee. 

According to the union contract, anyone hired (thereafter) was considered a temporary employee and was 

not entitled to an equal amount of work regardless of 

his term of employment. This discouraged many qualified persons from seeking work in the pottery industry. 

The result was, that in the case of a heavy onslaught 

of orders, the plants were forced to hire unqualified 

and unfit workers to fill the orders. . . . No person is 

going to do his best and keep a place going, when he 

has nothing to look forward to but the street when 

there is the slightest slowdown. The workers themselves 

are at fault, as well as the potteries (male, age-class 

—35-44, not married).

72

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Employment Conditions Generally

When the jobs of 200-250 persons are taken out of

a small town like ------ (city), the effect is bound to

be bad. Many of these persons are past middle age, 

and few possess skills in other lines of work. . . . In 

this community coal mining used to be a major industry. Automation has cost most of these jobs. . . . 

Quite a bit of money coming in is derived from pensions, social security, etc. The younger men find work 

in Zanesville, Newark, and as far away as Columbus.

The pottery industry is limping along, with little or 

no workers being added. . . . The chinaware industry 

was told, at the time the tariff cuts started, that if the 

tariff hurt, there would be relief of some sort. The 

tariff did not hurt us, it murdered us (male, age-class— 

62-64, married).

As it is now, if you don't work in a steel mill, you 

work in a pottery. These firms are the only half-way 

decent jobs around this vicinity, and the work isn't 

steady (male, age-class—20-24, married).

.... I wouldn't complain now if I could just find 

any work. I'd work any hours. Of course, we live on 

what my husband makes, but with four children at 

home I can't find any job except for 2 days a week. 

In order to have anything extra, a wife has to work 

(female, age-class—35-44, married).

I see no future for a young man in this area. The 

older workers have trades and there is no chance to 

get into one. The older tradesmen have enough work 

for themselves, but not enough to put on apprentices 

(male, age-class—25-34, married).

I can’t make enough on either one of my jobs alone 

to support my family. . . . I've been trying to sell my 

house, hoping it will help me over until I can find 

something more secure (male, age-class— 45-54, married).

Wages around------ (city) for both men and women

are very low, and you more or less have to take a job 

wherever you can get it, no matter what the wages, 

as you have to live; and if you don't take the work, 

someone else will (male, age-class—35-44, married).

Unemployment is more or less what a person makes 

it. With few exceptions, if a person is ambitious 

enough to always be willing to learn something new, 

he can always find work—perhaps not what he wants 

right now, but take a substitute job and work yourself into something more suitable. . . . When the 

pottery closed, there were many who had never worked 

any place else. These people were hit very hard. Some 

of them were never able to adapt themselves to another 

occupation (female, age-class—35-44, not married).

. . . I've been everywhere I know of to go looking for 

work. So far, nothing. You have to have experience or 

they won't even talk to you. I've been as far as Port 

Clinton, Ohio; Pascanda, Md.; up in Pennsylvania, 

and as far as Tennessee. They all say the same thing 

—we have people laid off. Come back in the spring. 

Maybe we can use you. . . . I have a little over $300

left to draw out, and then—nothing. And it won't take 

long for it to go. I can's even meet all my expenses 

(female, age-class—35-44, not married).

Work around------ (city) is scarce, especially if you

are past 35 years of age.------ (company) is our biggest

plant, but they hire so many women. Also they hire, 

layoff, hire, and layoff so often. The State hospital, 

where I work, is a mainstay, but wages there are low. 

It used to be a farmers' and older peoples' job, but 

now young people have to use it to keep a family. . . . 

The last 3 or 4 years at the pottery, we were off work 

so much that I used all my savings. So when the 

plant finally shut down for good, all I had left was 

what I had in my dinner bucket (male, age-class—35- 

44, married).

Where I am now employed is far below the ------

(pottery) in many respects. First, it is nonunion and 

working conditions are not as good as they were at 

------ (pottery). . . . There is no chance for advancement (female, age-class— 45-54, married).

Older Workers

The main trouble I ran into when I became unemployed was the factories around here have an age 

limit and if you are over 35, it was impossible to get 

hired. . . . They seemed to say that in all these pension plans, they had made it too expensive to hire 

anyone over this age limit. . . . Pity the poor guys 

that are in their forties, if they get out of a job by 

a factory going out of business, unless they are exceptionally well-trained in some trade that has a shortage of men (male, age-class—62-64, married).

I found out that the older man does not have much 

of a chance in industry here. The older man who 

loses his job, as the potters did, has to take inferior 

jobs that the young men won't have, such as janitor 

or driving trucks, etc. I am working for half as much 

as I made in the pottery. Even the retraining programs 

here are not taking the older men . . . It is tragic to 

work your whole life as a skilled worker in an industry 

and when you get over 50 years old, they go out of 

business. Thousands of us potters have had that experience (male, age-class—55-61, married).

If we could get some kind of factory work at ------

(city)—that would hire men over 50 who are still 

able to do a day's work. I made three trips per week 

for 5 Y2 months to one particular pottery in town, and 

I had three trades. . . . When they hired, they hired 

from 18 to 22 years old, with no experience. Their 

explanation was that insurance on older men was too 

high. My work at present is seasonal, and I'll be out 

of work until spring opens up (male, age-class—55-61, 

married).

Many were not hired back when th e ------ (company)

took over. Many were new help who had never worked 

in a pottery. After all these years, the pottery union 

finally has a pension plan, but it is too late for me 

even though I have worked 40 years. I'm sure I am

73

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
not alone. I don’t know what men over 45 are going 

to do to exist (male, age-class—55-61, married).

Work is very hard to get in ------ (city), for the

older women. There is a need for some kind of factory 

here—maybe a garment factory would be the answer. 

The only thing that is offered to us is domestic work 

(female, age-class—55-61, not married).

I am 58 years old and my husband is 55 years old, 

and they say we are too old and they don’t want us. 

What are we going to do until we are 62 years old? 

Why don’t they bring social security down to 55 years 

old so that we can have something to live on (female, 

age-class—55-61, married).

Young Persons and Employment

There just isn’t enough employment to take care 

of the high school student just graduated, or otherwise. 

My oldest son, age 20, left town to get employment, in 

a larger city. My youngest 18% graduated last year, 

has been unable to get employment thus far (female, 

age-class—35-44, married).

Most of the young people with whom I am acquainted 

are still looking for jobs, and most of them are married. 

Everywhere you go it is the same old story, everything 

is slow and people are laid off. . . . This leads me to 

believe there is only one alternative, and that is to 

take some special training and learn a good trade, but 

without government help I feel this is impossible, for 

the people I know just don’t have enough money (male, 

age-class—20-24, not married).

Working Away From Home

.... We own our own house in Middlebourne, which

is 108 miles fro m ------ (city). So I rented a room in

------ (city) and “ batched” there, coming home every

weekend—because we could not sell our property here 

and get enough for it to buy there. Besides, we always 

raised our own garden and preserved much of our 

food . . . (male, age-class— 55-61 married).

------ (pottery), where I work now, I could quit anytime. I would like to get something at home. By the 

time I pay my room and board, it’s just about the

same as unemployment compensation. ------(home city)

hasn’t enough jobs for men (male, age-class—35-44, 

married).

We had to cash in our insurance to help carry us

over the slack period a fte r ------ (pottery) shut down.

. . . Have worked the last few weeks in Jittsburgh— 

over 100 miles per day. . . . This is only temporary 

work. . . . Home still up for sale. Hoping to get somewhere to get steady employment (male, age-class— 

45-54, married).

Attraction of Industry

It seems to me that it would make more sense to 

bring the industry to the people than to have the people

go to the industry, especially since most of them wish 

to live where they are now living (male, age-class—55- 

61, married).

This area at one time was the pottery center of the 

world. . . . With companies which are looking for sites, 

this section had a lot of possibilities to move ahead— 

it just needs some push by a few go-getters. . . . The 

money going overseas to help others is for the birds. 

We need help in this area and need it now (male, ageclass—35-44, married).

Resentment Against City Functionaries

We have a town here that wants you to pay a city 

wage tax, but they won’t help you find employment, 

(male, age-class—35-44, married).

We have one of the highest rates of boys-in-trouble 

with the law there is. The record shows that most of 

these boys are not working or have never worked because they cannot find jobs. . . . What is our Chamber 

of Commerce doing? A big fiat nothing. There is no 

new business coming into our area; only the old ones 

moving out with empty buildings like a ghost town, 

which is actually what it is slowly becoming. . . . I 

have looked for work and am offered a babysitting job 

at the rate of $10-15 per week, for 8 hours’ work. 

This area consists of beer taverns, stores, and restaurants, and gas stations—everyplace to spend your 

money, but no place to make money (female, age-class 

— 45-54, married).

Years ago the old Chamber of Commerce which was 

under the thumb of the pottery manufacturers would 

not allow other industry to come in here. The Chamber 

today is made up, I think, of some very good men that 

could not be kept under a thumb. They are interested 

in a variety of things, as well as potteries. I’m sure 

they do all they can to bring in new industries (female, 

age-class—55-61, not married).

------ (city) is a distressed area if there ever was one,

and the Chamber of Commerce wants to keep it that 

way so that they can pay $1.00 for labor for what 

little work there is (male, age-class— 45-54, married).

Social Security

I have been to the hospitals, laundries, lunchrooms,

and hotels, but no one seems to need anyone in ------

(city). I have also asked the other potteries in West 

Virginia. My unemployment will run out in June. 

What am I supposed to do then? I cant get my social 

security for 7 years (female, age-class— 55-61, not 

married).

Unemployment compensation

Why can the State of Ohio pay a pottery worker 

with three dependents $40 a week and the State of 

West Virginia pay a worker $17 a week doing the same 

work with the same number of dependents? . . . Since

74

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I left the ------ (pottery) in 1959, I have not worked

for 21 months and have worked at two different potteries up to this present time (male, age-class—20-24, 

married).

The unemployment situation in this area is poor for 

the amount of population we have. If you don’t have 

a high school education and are over the age of 40, 

you are out of luck. . . . The unemployment compensation in West Virginia is very low compared to Ohio. 

$32 is the most you can get in 1 week. I know a man 

who is unemployed in Ohio, who never made the amount 

I did last year, but still he gets more unemployment 

than I do (male, age-class—35-44, married).

As for the unemployment office in ------ (city), I have

signed for work at this office four different times in 

the past 10 years and have never received a call at 

any time for a job. I am skilled at a variety of jobs 

but never was called. Anyone you talk to who has been 

unemployed will tell you it’s a waste of time to go to 

the unemployment office unless it is to sign up for 

benefits. I really think this office for unemployment

is a waste of the taxpayers’ money as far as ------

(city) is concerned, unless you are a woman looking 

for work. I understand they do get work for friends 

(male, age-class—35-44, not married).

Training

.... Massillon, Canton, and Youngstown, and some 

others have retraining programs. Why isn’t there one 

set up here to take care of the people around here? I 

understand these programs are set up for people when 

automation takes over their jobs. But what about us, 

where a foreign country takes over our jobs and we 

can’t do anything about it? Do we have to go to Japan

or Germany to find work? (Male, age-class—55-61, 

married.)

I’ve tried every place around here and they say they 

don’t need anybody. I’ve tried at two potteries, the

state road, and have my application in with th e ------

(county) board of education for a janitor’s job. They 

all have the same answer, “We don’t need anybody.” 

I’d certainly like to get into some training program 

(male, age-class—45-54, married).

There are still things I can learn to do, but we live 

too far to go to trade school in Canton in bad weather. 

And there is no bus to take you. I don’t drive, and my 

husband doesn’t drive at night in bad weather (female, 

age-class—55-61, married).

.... The good paying jobs around------ (city) are

for people with experience. I have tried to get a better 

paying job, but the first thing they ask you is how much 

experience do you have . . . If they don’t give people 

like me a chance to get experience, how do we get it? 

So we don’t have any choice but to take a job in the 

pottery where wages are low. One sure thing, if there 

were a school around here where we could go learn a 

trade, I would be one of the first through the door 

(male, age-class—25-34, married).

I have already applied for practical nurses’ training 

in Pittsburgh, Pa. The man came to interview me, but 

since I have no income except my unemployment compensation, which will be out in a few weeks, I told the 

man to hold my application until I might be able to 

enter training. That was in November 1962; and up 

to now conditions are no better, so I may have to give 

up the idea (female, age-class— 45-54, not married).

I am starting today, March 25, 1963, to take nurses’ 

aid training at a Government training course (female, 

age-class— 45-54, not married).

75

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Methodology

Mailings of part I of the questionnaire (appendix B) revealed that 393 of the 2,194 former 

pottery employees whose names and addresses 

were compiled (as described in Background of 

the Study, pp. 54-55) either could not or would 

not respond—the nonviables. This left a group 

of 1,801 viable respondents, that is, persons who 

presumably were available at the address of 

record and who had not indicated that they 

would not cooperate in the survey. Of this 

group, 401 proved to be nonrespondents to part 

I of the questionnaire, but 68 of these ultimately became respondents (to both parts of 

the questionnaire) as a result of personal interviews with a sample of the part I nonrespondents. Thus, 1,468 were respondents to the part I 

questionnaire. But 165 of these did not respond 

to part II of the questionnaire, for which the 

information is accordingly limited to 1,303 respondents.

Nonrespondents

Many of the reasons for not completing the 

questionnaire given by the nonviable group 

applied also to the sample of nonrespondents 

selected for personal interview. In fact, if such 

reasons had been established through the mail 

survey rather than by personal interview, all 

of the nonrespondents would have been classified as nonviable. The circumstances of the 

two groups are shown in table A -l.

In both cases, the largest single reason for 

nonresponse was a deficiency of some kind in 

the mailing address of record which could not 

be remedied by diligent inquiry.

The list of nonviables, but not of nonrespondents, included a large number of persons who 

were outside the scope of the survey. While 

some of the nonviables who had quit may have 

done so in contemplation of layoff, it was 

decided that further pursuit would be too complicated and would be unlikely to salvage more 

than a few of these subjects.

Nearly all of the 100 nonviables who refused to participate because their pottery job 

had been temporary are traceable to 3 of the 

13 potteries. This suggests that for some companies the mailing list included workers on the 

extra list, whereas for other companies the 

mailing lists apparently included only those 

who had been in the basic work force.

It appears unlikely that failure to obtain 

completed questionnaires from either the nonviables or the nonrespondents produced any 

gross distortion in the study’s representation of 

the various potteries that had made the layoffs. 

With respect to pottery employer, the coefficient 

of correlation between viables and nonviables is 

.857; that is, the pottery which accounted for 

the largest number of viables also accounted 

for the largest number of nonviables, and so 

forth. Similarly, the coefficient between the 

1,468 respondents and the 401 nonrespondents 

to part I from which the personal interview 

sample was selected was .854. Furthermore, the 

coefficient of correlation between the 165 part 

II nonrespondents and the 1,303 part II respondents was .903.

Distribution of Respondents

The distribution of the part I—respondents 

by pottery from which separated, as well as the 

organizational status of the pottery and the 

period in which most of the separations occurred, as shown in table A-2. The distribution 

for part II respondents is so similar that it is 

not presented separately.

For purposes of identifying the part I respondents by the location of the potteries from 

which they were separated, one should locate 

the city of East Liverpool on the eastern 

edge of Ohio and the two towns directly 

across the Ohio River in West Virginia— 

Chester and Newell. This city and these towns 

in combination are designated here as the East 

Liverpool area. Five of the potteries in this 

study are (or were) located in that area, and 

about 43 percent of the respondents are identifiable with it. Within a radius of approximately 

35 miles of East Liverpool are five more potteries and 26 percent of the respondents of the 

study. A circle of these dimensions centered on 

East Liverpool would encompass such prominent steel-producing cities as Youngstown,

76

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Pittsburgh (or its western-most suburbs), and 

Weirton; Wheeling lies just outside the perimeter. Farther away from East Liverpool to the 

southwest can be located three more of the 

potteries, which accounted for 31 percent of the 

respondents in this study. All of these were 

dissolved; two were in small cities and the third 

in a town.

Personal Interviews

For the customary interviews of nonrespondents, limited finances dictated that the 165 part 

II nonrespondents be abandoned because a good

deal was known about them from their responses to part I of the questionnaire. The information on their work status, shown in table 

A-3, led to this decision. The additional information that might have been obtained in part 

II of the questionnaire presumably would have 

been minimal for about 36 percent of the nonrespondents: those who reported unable to 

work, retired, doing own housework, recalled to 

pottery, and the “ other” category (as “in 

Armed Forces” ). Horeover, it was believed 

that some of the married women who reported, 

looking for work, might prove on further investigation to be doing their own housework or

T a b le A -l. Cir c u m s t a n c e s op n o n v ia b il it y or n o n r e sp o n se , 1962-63, su r v e y of displaced po ttery w o r k e r s

Circumstances

Nonviability established 

by mail survey, 1962-63

Nonresponse to personal 

interview, summer 1963

Number of 

persons Percent

Number of 

persons Percent

Total___________ _____ ________ __ _____________ 393 100.0 i 114 100.0

Person could not be located 2_ _ ______________ ______ _____ __ __________________________ _ _ 109 27.7 43 37.7

Deceased_________________________ _____________ __ 27 6.9 4 3.5

Beyond scope of survey________________________________________________________________ _

Quit, rather than laid off___________ _____ ____________________________ __ __

119

67

30.2

17.0

7 6.1

Retired, rather than laid off_________________________________ ________ ______ 18 4.6

Not a production or maintenance worker at pottery____________ __ _______ 28 7.1

Listed by 2 potteries as former employee_____________________________ ______________ _ i I 6 1.5

Not interested because:

Pottery job was temporary or part-time_____________ __ __________________________ __ 100 25.4 17 14.9

Person had retired or was unable to work__________________ _______ __ ________________ 16 4.1 6 5.3

Person at work *________________________________________ _________ __ _________ ________ 12 3.1 15 13.2

No resaon specified___________________________________________ __________ ____ _________ 7 1.8 8 7.0

Not at home on each call by interviewer______________ ____________ _____________ __ _____ 11 9.6

Other.................................................................................. 3 9 4 3 2.6

1 Excludes 68 persons who completed both parts of the questionnaire

during the interview.

2 Includes: moved, leaving no forwarding address, mail unclaimed,

insufficient address, unknown at address, traveling abroad or in Armed

Forces, address beyond territorial jurisdiction of interviewer.

* All of these persons had been recalled to the pottery.

4 This group regarded the questionnaire as too personal.

Note: Dashes indicate information not available or not applicable.

Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

T a b le A-2. D is tr ib u tio n of r e sp o n d e n t s to pa r t I of q u e s t io n n a ir e , b y po ttery from w h ic h separated ,

MODEL PERIOD (S) OF SEPARATIONS, AND STATUS OF POTTERY, 1962-63 SURVEY OF DISPLACED POTTERY WORKERS

Respondents to part I

separated from designated pottery

Status and designation of pottery Modal period(s) 

of separations

Both sexes Men Women

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total-_____________________________________________ 1,468 100.0 762 100.0 706 0.0

Undissolved potteries:

Company A __________________________ __ _ __ _ ____ 6/59, 11/60 

None

43 2.9 1 0.1 42 5.9

Company B___________________________________________ 21 1.4 10 1.3 11 1.5

Company C___________ ______________________________ None 19 1.2 4 0.4 15 2.1

Company D_________________ ______________ ______ 12/60, 11/61

5- 6/62

6/61, 11-12/61 

11-12/60

1-2/61, 4-5/61 

5/58

10/59, 1/60

6- 7-8/60 

12/60-1/61 

10-12/62

37 2.5 23 3.0 14 1.9

Company E___________________________________________ 123 8.3 55 7.2 68 9.6

Company F______________ __________________ ______ 58 3.9 13 1.7 45 6.3

Company G___________________________________________ 12 0.8 8 1.0 4 0.5

Dissolved potteries:

Company S______________ __________________ ___ 90 6.1 43 5.5 47 6 6

Company T___________________ ________________ ___ 111 7.5 65 8.5 46 6.5

Company W __________________ __ __________ ____ 63 4.2 23 3.0 40 5.6

Company X ___________________________________________ 255 17.3 166 21.7 89 12.6

Company Y______ ____________________________________ 115 7.8 56 7.3 59 8.3

Company Z _______________ ___ _______ ________ 521 35.4 295 38.7 226 32.0

Note: Because of rounding, sums of items may not equal totals.

77

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
not actively searching for work because they 

believed there was no job opportunity. Further 

support for abandoning any attempt to interview part II nonrespondents was obtained incidentally in the process of collecting information on the part II questionnaire. At that time, 

it was learned that, of the 165 nonrespondents, 

6 had moved away; 6 refused to cooperate, 2 

without explanation, 2 because they were working, and 2 because they had been recalled to 

the pottery; 2 were deceased; 1 had retired; and 

1 had entered the Armed Forces.

For these reasons, available funds were used 

to investigate the 401 nonrespondents to part 

I of the questionnaire, about whom nothing was 

known. Pilot interviews suggested that: (a)

fewer than half of the nonrespondents would 

have telephones and would thus be exceedingly 

difficult to contact and (b) two-thirds would not 

respond to a personal interview. Based on 

standard procedures, resources would permit 

interview calls upon about 175 of the total of 

401 nonrespondents.

A sample of 182 persons was chosen at 

random, and these names were allocated among 

eight interviewers. With one exception, each of 

the 182 persons could be identified with 1 of 

the 8 cities chosen as bases of operation for 

the interviews: Canonsburg, Pa., and seven

cities in Ohio— Cambridge, Coshocton, Crooksville, East Palestine, Salem, Steubenville, and 

of course, East Liverpool. The survey director, 

Professor Levinson, was one of the interviewers. Each of the other seven was associated with one of the remaining cities. All were 

male public school teachers who had been recommended to the survey director by their 

respective superintendents of public schools.

The interviews were conducted in the summer 

of 1963, when the interviewers were free of 

their school duties.

As previously indicated, 114 of the 182 in the 

interview sample did not complete the questionnaire, for reasons presented in table B -l. 

The 68 who did respond to the questionnaire 

constituted 37.4 percent of the sample of 182. 

This percentage is consistent with the response 

rate that might have been predicted had an 

attempt been made to contact personally all 401 

nonrespondents. Applying the appropriate 

mathematical formula enables one to say with 

confidence of 95 percent accuracy that between 

32.1 and 42.9 percent of the 401 would have 

responded affirmatively.21 In short, one can be 

highly confident that between 129 and 172 of 

the 401 persons would have filled out the questionnaire.

T a b l e A-3. I n f o r m a t io n f r o m p a r t I o f q u e s t io n ­

n a ir e ON WORK STATUS OF PART I I NONRESPONDENTS,

1962-63 SURVEY OF DISPLACED POTTERY WORKERS

Work status

Both sexes Male Female

Number

Percent

Number

PercentNumber

Percent

Total_________ 165 100 86 100 79 100

Unable to work------- 5 3 1 1 4 5

Retired_____________ 24 14 14 16 10 13

Doing own housework 16 10 16 20

Looking for work____ 27 16 15 17 12 15

Believe there is no

job opportunity___ 2 1 2 2

Recalled to pottery__ 13 8 6 7 7 9

Working____________ 76 46 48 56 28 35

Other_______________ 1 1 1 1

Unreported__________ 1 1 1 1

Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 

totals.

21L. Katz, “Confidence Intervals for the Number Showing a

Certain Characteristic in a Population when Sampling Is Without Replacement,” Journal of the American Statistical Association,

Yol. 48 (1953), pp. 256-261.

78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire

Budget Bureau No. 44-603 

Approval expires September 1, 1963

QUESTIONNAIRE - PART I

This is strictly a confidential survey. Nobody except the person who mailed this to you will see 

your answers. Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope 

before ________________ .

A. YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT THE__________________________CHINA COMPANY:

1. How many years altogether did you work at that company?________________________ years

2. In your last two years at that company, what was your usual occupation (or job title) ?

3. When were you finally laid off from that company? ________Month ________ Year

B. AFTER YOU WERE LAID OFF FROM THE____________ CHINA COMPANY FOR THE

LAST TIME:

4. Did you look for another j o b ? ________________________________ Yes______ No______

a. If ‘“ No,” please explain why you didn’t._____________________________________________

b. If “ Yes,” how many weeks did it take you to find another job, if you found one?______

______ Weeks (Check here if you never found one_________ __ )

5. Did you get unemployment compensation after your layoff from the

__________Com pany?__________________________________________ Yes______ No______

If “yes,” (a) how many weeks of benefits did you draw ?_________________ ______Weeks

(b) why did your benefits stop? (Check one:)

_______ I found a job or entered my own business.

_______ My benefits were used up.

_______ Other reason (specify).___________________

6. If you didn’t get unemployment compensation, explain why.

7. Are you working n o w ? ________________________________________ Yes No

8. If you are not working now, check the answer that applies to you:

I am not able to work.

_______ I am retired.

_______ I am doing housework in my own home.

_______ I am actively looking for work.

_______Other reason (specify)._____________

79

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:

9. Age: Please check your correct age group:

14-19_____ 25-34______ 45-54______ 62-64 _____

20-24_____ 35-44_____ 55-61______ 65 and over______

10. What is the highest grade of school you completed?________________________________ Grade

11. Sex (check o n e ) _________________________________________ Male______ Female______

12. Check one: Are you m arried?_______________________________________________ ___________

Other (single, widowed, separated, divorced) ? ___________________ ___________

13. How many minor children (under 18 years of age) do you have?________ __________ Children

14. How many years have you lived in or near (within

commuting distance) o f __________ ? _____________________________________________Years

THE KIND OF WORK YOU ARE DOING NOW: (Please answer these questions if you are 

doing any kind of work for pay or income.)

Do you work for an employer?________________________________ Yes______ No______

a. If “ Yes,” your occupation (or job title)_______________________________________ _

b. Name of company_________________________________________ ______ __________________

c. City (or tow n )_________________________________________ State_______________________

d. How did you get the information to apply for this job? (Check one:)

____ from the state Employment Service (Unemployment Office).

from the_______________________ Company.

____ from the labor union you belong to.

_ _ _ from a friend or relative.

____ you somehow heard about the job and went to the company and applied.

____ other (specify).______

16. Do you have your own business or fa rm ?________________________ Yes_____ No______

a. If “ Yes,” what kind of business is it?___________________________________

b. Its location (City, Town, or County)________________________________________________

17. How long have you been in your present job or business?_______________________ Months

18. Is this your first job or business since you left th e __________company? Yes____ No____

19. Do you earn income from any other kind of work besides the job or business that you checked

above? ________________________________________________________ Yes______ N o_____

If “ Yes,” ’ please specify what kind it is.______________

D.

15.

80

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Budget Bureau No. 44-603 

Approval expires September 1,1963

QUESTIONNAIRE - PART II

This is the second half of the questionnaire that was sent to you before. All your answers still 

remain confidential. Please return it in the enclosed, self-addressed, envelope before.

E. WHILE YOU WERE STILL EMPLOWED AT THE_________________CHINA COMPANY:

1. About how far did you travel from home to work (one way) ? ------------------- ----------- Miles

2. Did you own your own home in or near___________________________________________________

(that is, within commuting distance of the company) ? --------------- Yes______ No______

3. Think about the wages you earned in your last few months with the company before you were 

finally laid off, and answer either a or b — below:

a. If you were on an hourly rate, about how much was it?----------------$ _________Per Hour

b. If you were on a piece rate, what is your best guess of

how much it figured out to on an hourly-rate basis?____________$ _________ Per Hour

4. Think about your last twelve months with the company before you were finally laid off, and 

answer a and b — below:

a. Check the bracket below that shows the total number of weeks that you worked at the 

company on either part-time or full-time work:

1 to 5 weeks_______ 21 to 25 weeks ___________ 41 to 45 weeks____

6 to 10 weeks_______ 26 to 30 w eeks_______46 to 50 weeks_______

11 to 15 weeks_______ 31 to 35 w eeks_______ 51 to 52 weeks

16 to 20 weeks_______ 36 to 40 w eeks_______

Check here if you don’t remember or if

you were with the company less than a year.______

b. For the same twelve months, check the bracket below that shows the total wages (before 

any deductions) that the company paid you:

less than $500 ______ $3000 to $3500____________ $6000 to $6500

$500 to $1000______ $3500 to $4000____________ $6500 to $7000

$1000 to $1500______ $4000 to $4500____________ $7000 to $7500

$1500 to $2000______ $4500 to $5000____________ $7500 to $8000 _______

$2000 to $2500______ $5000 to $5500_______ more than $8000

$2500 to $3000______ $5500 to $6000_______

Check here if you don’t remember or if

you were with the company less than a year.______

5. (This question is to be answered only by men, not women.)

If you were married at that time, was your wife usually working for a wage or other 

income?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes______ N o______

Not married

81

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
F. PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT: Please answer this section if you became unemployed

after you lost your job at the ____________________ Company. If you were not unemployed

(like, you got another job right away or you decided to retire), skip this section and move 

on to section G — below.

6. If you got unemployment compensation, about how much was your weekly

benefits? _________________________________________________________ $________ Per Week

7. Leaving out unemployment compensation, how did you (and your family) meet living expenses: (Please check:)

_____ We used our savings___________________________ About how much?---------- $___________

If savings were used, do you or your family have any le ft? ____ Yes______No____

_____ We borrowed m oney____________________________ About how m uch?------- $___________

_____ We moved to cheaper housing.

___ We got cash assistance from a public or private welfare agency.

_____ We got some other kind of public assistance, such as free food.

_____ We got help from private people outside our household.

We sold our property.

_____ Any other (specify). _______________________________________________________________

G. THE JOB OR OTHER WORK YOU HAVE NOW: Please answer this section only if you

are working now. If you are not working, check here__________ , skip the rest of this page,

and move on to section H — on the next page.

8. How far do you now travel from home to work (one way) ? _______________ __________ Miles

9. Do you own your own home in or near the city or place where you work now (within commuting distance of your work) ? ___________________________________ Y es_________ No_______

10. What is your best guess of your usual wages (or other income) that you are earning lately?

____________________________________________________________ Per Hour

11. What is your best guess of the average hours-per-week that you have been working during

the past few m onths?_________________________________________ _________ Hours Per Week

12. Is your present job (or work) more steady employment than the job you used to have at the 

 Company? (Check one:)

More Steady________ Less Steady_________ About the Sam e_________Don’t Know

13. Does your present job (or work) require more skill than the job you used to have at the 

 Company? (Check one:)

More S k ill_________Less Skill__________ About the Same__________ Don’t K now ________

14. (This question is to be answered only by men, not women.)

If you are married, does your wife usually work for a wage or other income at this time? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Y es________ N o _____

Not Married

82

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H. SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS: Whether you are working now or not, please answer the 

questions below.

15. If you were offered a job in another part of the country at about the same pay as your old 

pottery job, would you take it? (Check one:)

____Yes, definitely.

Maybe, it depends (specify on what). _______________________________

No (explain why not).

16. In addition to regular school, did you ever take any special training such as apprenticeship,

a trade school or business school course?________________________ Yes______ N o _____

a. If “Yes,” what kind of training was it? ______________________________________________

b. When did you take i t ? ________________________________________________ __________Year

17. If there were a plan for training workers for new jobs, and paying them something while 

learning, would you be interested? (Check one:)

Yes. What kind of training would you like to get?________________________________

Maybe, it depends (specify on what).

No (explain why not).

____Don’t know.

18. If you wish to, use the rest of this page and the back of it to say anything you want to about 

employment and unemployment problems in and around__________________________________.

☆ U . S . G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1 9 6 6 — 2 2 2 - 3 8 2

83

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis