Report on Report onReport on

the American the American

Workforce

U.S. Department of Labor

Elaine L. Chao, Secretary

2001

This excerpt contains only the first chapter of the report

Counting Minorities: A Brief History and

a Look at the Future
iii

The introductory essay outlines the progress of the American worker over thecourse of the 20th century. This piece also suggests the degree to which our

understanding of the workforce, as result of refined statistics, improved substantially during the century. The introduction was written by Donald M. Fisk.

Chapter 1 describes the important changes in the composition of the American

population and workforce that are the result of immigration and internal migration,

particularly the movement of African American workers out of the South. These

changes have driven the continuing development of methods for classifying demographic data to track the economic status of a growing variety of groups in the

population. The authors of the chapter on minority measurement are N.Clyde Tucker;

Geoffrey D. Paulin; Howard N Fullerton, Jr.; Thomas M. Beers III; Terry M.

McMenamin; Abraham T. Mosisa; Sharon R. Cohany; and Howard V. Hayghe.

The second chapter chronicles the evolution of compensation practices over the

course of the 20th century and the continuing efforts to capture these practices in

useful statistical data. The components of compensation continue to evolve. Variable pay benefits—such as profit sharing and stock options—are growing in importance; and other benefits, such as family care and health promotion programs

have emerged. The authors of chapter 2 are Thomas Moehrle, Jordan Pfuntner,

Richard Schumann, Albert Schwenk, Robert Van Giezen, Michael Horrigan, William

Goodman, and Michael Cimini.

Chapter 3 describes the structural evolution of the economy and the concomitant development of systems of industrial and occupational classification. Though

not often visible, economic classification schemes are critical in determining how

well statistics reflect the true workings of the economy. The chapter’s contributors

were Daniel Hecker, Jerome R. Pikulinski, and Norman C. Saunders. The authors

wish to acknowledge the assistance of the History Staff of the Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

The Report was edited by Monica Gabor, Daniel Houlder, and Monica Carpio

and was designed and composed by Margaret Jones, Phyllis Lott,

Dorothy Williams, and Bonita Boles, under the direction of Monica Gabor.

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
15

Since the inception of the Republic, a wide

variety of race and ethnic groups has comprised the American population. Some, like

the ancestors of today’s African Americans,

came unwillingly, others fled starvation or religious or political persecution, while still others came simply for the chance to better their

lives economically. As the population’s diversity has increased, so has the need for data on

minority groups. Such data not only help describe this diversity, but also assist in understanding how well—or poorly—various minority groups are faring and give decisionmakers

some information on which to base policy proposals.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe

the evolution of the collection of data on minorities, focusing on the decennial census and

the Current Population Survey (CPS), the

Nation’s labor force survey. The chapter begins with a brief history of immigration to this

country. It then goes on to describe early

efforts to collect data on minorities through

the decennial census. Next, it describes changes

that were made to the CPS to help monitor

the status of minorities in the labor force. A

section summarizing the current labor force

situation of minority workers, including subsections on immigrants, expenditures, and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projections of

minority participation in the labor force, follows. The chapter concludes with a discussion

of current efforts to meet demands for better

data on minorities, particularly persons of multiracial backgrounds.

 A History of Immigration and

Migration

Colonial era olonial eraolonial era. Initially, Britain’s North American colonies were peopled by immigrants from

the British Isles. These immigrants included

not only those who came to the New World

for economic gain, but also religious minorities, political dissidents, minor criminals, and

indentured servants. Soon, however, the colonial economies began to grow rapidly, increasing their demand for labor. “By the beginning

of the eighteenth century government officials had decided that it was in the interest of

England to improve and thicken her colonies

with people not her own.” 1 Two strategies

were followed in order to fill the gap. First,

the slave trade was developed through royal

charters. Second, Protestants from other European countries were actively sought as settlers, with funds often provided for their transportation.

Independence. After the Revolutionary War,

immigrants continued to pour into the new

country. Although the new nation had been

able to end the British practice of transporting

political and criminal prisoners, it was unable

to put an end to the slave trade, despite the

fact that many found it objectionable. Consequently, even though immigrants from Europe

flowed to the United States in large numbers, it

Chapter 1

Counting Minorities: A Brief History and

a Look at the Future

In This Chapter—

A history of immigration

 and migration ............................... 15

Counting minorities ...................... 17

Publication of information on

 minority workers ......................... 21

Current data on minority

 workers ......................................... 2 3

Counting minorities: new

 directions ...................................... 28

Conclusion ...................................... 2 9

Page

Excerpted from:

Report on the American Workforce 2001

U.S. Department of Labor
16

has been estimated that more Africans than

Europeans came to the United States each year

until 1840, and that cumulative European immigration did not surpass that of Africans until 1880. 2 This may seem shocking, considering that President Thomas Jefferson signed a

bill in 1807 that made it illegal to import any

person of color into the United States as a

slave.3 However, little effort was made to

enforce this law over the next 50 years. Shipbuilders from Baltimore even continued constructing slave ships, and underwriters still insured those ships.4

Early on, problems assimilating some of

the immigrants began to arise. Among the

European immigrants were a sizable number of

Germans and Irish who were Roman Catholics.

Anti-Catholic sentiment began to emerge and

was adopted by such groups as the Native

American movement (not to be confused with

American Indians) in 1837, followed by the

Know-Nothing party around 1850. These were

the first major political movements endorsing

the limitation of immigration of certain

groups,5 thus marking the beginning of an exclusionary movement that eventually culminated in the highly restrictive National Origins Act of 1924.

The Great Irish Migration. The Great Irish Migration. During the 19th

and early 20th centuries, Ireland, one of

Europe’s smallest countries, accounted for more

immigrants than any other European nation.

Indeed, for most of the second half of the

nineteenth century, “the rate of Irish emigration was more than double that of any other

European country, with as many as 13 per

thousand emigrating on average each year.”6

Altogether, about 4.5 million Irish immigrated

to the United States between 1820 and 1930

according to American statistics,7 and the Irish

represented at least a third of the foreign-born

population of the country between 1850 and

1870. (See table 1-1.)

The failure of the Irish potato crop in

1845-46 helped provide the impetus for this

mass migration. The Irish economy was largely

agrarian, dependent upon the export of cattle

and grain to England. Thus, most of the product of the Irish farmers was sold, leaving the

potato as the staple food of the farmer and his

family. Consequently, when the potato crop

failed, famine ensued. The effects of this famine were profound; more than 1 million people

died from starvation and disease.8 Millions of

Irish fled their homeland and, by 1891, the

population of Ireland (4.7 million) was only

57 percent of what it had been 50 years earlier.9

Asian immigration and the origins of exclusionary legislation. While the Irish were crossing the Atlantic, Chinese laborers were crossing the Pacific. By the beginning of the Civil

War, contract laborers from China had become

abundant on the West Coast. However, they

were soon perceived as competing with domestic labor; they typically worked long hours

for considerably less pay than their domestic

counterparts. In addition, their language and

culture were very different from that of the

predominant European-based culture. For a

time, Chinese contract labor was concentrated

largely on the west coast. But that changed

following the completion of the Nation’s first

transcontinental railroad in May 1869. The

next month, the Nation’s first convention to

discuss the importation of Chinese labor was

held in Memphis, Tennessee, organized and

attended by businessmen from nine southern

States and California.10

A year later, 75 Chinese laborers arrived in

North Adams, Massachusetts, to break a strike,

working for pay less than half that of the striking workers.11 Reacting to a perceived threat

(Chinese labor was likened to slavery, and Chinese laborers were depicted as stealing food

from honest white workers12 ), politicians began to introduce legislation aimed at limiting

Chinese immigration or banning it altogether.

In 1879, the U.S. Congress passed the first

immigration restriction law aimed at a particular nationality. The Fifteen Passenger Bill

limited the number of Chinese passengers on

any ship entering the United States to 15. But

because it would have violated the 1868

Burlingame-Seward treaty between the United

States and China, which recognized the rights

of Chinese to emigrate, the bill was vetoed.13

In 1880, however, America and China

signed a new agreement, called the Angell

Treaty, that allowed the United States to limit

Chinese immigration. Two years later, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese

Exclusion Act. This act barred Chinese immigrant laborers for 10 years. It was renewed in

1892, again in 1902 and, in 1904, was renewed

for an indefinite length of time.14 The passage of this act paved the way for further restrictive legislation affecting not only Asians,

but Europeans as well.
17

European immigration in the late 19th and

early 20th centuries. There was a pronounced

shift in the country of origin of European immigrants beginning in the late 19th century.

Originally, European immigrants tended to

come from northwestern Europe. (See table

1-1.) In the late 1800s, this trend gradually

began to change and, by the early 1900s, the

majority of European immigrants were from

southern and eastern Europe. These new immigrants came from areas with cultural and

linguistic traditions considerably different from

those of the earlier European immigrants.

Thus, the United States found itself confronted

by problems in assimilating these new immigrants.

President Theodore Roosevelt helped set

up a factfinding commission to resolve the

problem.15 In 1911, the Immigration Commission published a report that “lamented the

progressive shift in the sources of immigration away from northwestern and toward southern and eastern Europe, perceiving it as a decline in immigrant quality.”16 In 1917, a literacy act was passed (this had been attempted

earlier, without success) to restrict European

immigration and, in 1921, the United States

passed the Emergency Quota Act, which applied immigration quotas based on nationality

or origin. The provisions of this act were

renewed and made more restrictive by the National Origins Act of 1924. The quota system

was reaffirmed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. With few exceptions,

these quotas remained relatively intact until

President Johnson signed the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1965, which finally did away

with the system of national origin, race, or

ancestry quotas for immigration to the United

States.17 More recently, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 permitted some

undocumented aliens to obtain lawful permanent residence, and the Immigration Act of

1990 increased the annual cap on immigration.18

The impact of these legislative changes

can be seen in the statistics. In 1960, about 5

percent of the foreign-born population were

Asian and 9 percent were from Latin America,

while almost 75 percent were from Europe.

By 2000, a little more than 25 percent of the

foreign-born population came from Asia and

51 percent came from Latin America, compared with 15 percent from Europe. (See table

1-1.)

Blacks leave the South. Blacks leave the South. Not all migrations

have come from abroad. There have also been

large shifts in population within our borders.

One that has had far-reaching effects on the

Nation was the mass movement of blacks out

of the rural South. Between 1910 and 1920,

the black population of the North rose by almost 700,000, and by 1930 nearly 1 million

blacks had left the South.19 Some areas in

South Chicago went from being predominantly

white to predominantly black in a very short

period.20 Poverty, racial segregation, and Jim

Crow laws in the South, coupled with a boom

in war industries and a decline in immigrant

labor from abroad, combined to bring about

this population shift.

Not only did blacks move out of the South,

they also moved to urban centers. In 1940,

for instance, 48 percent of the black population was classified as urban. By 1960, this

number had risen to 80 percent.21 Data from

the Current Population Survey indicate that

86 percent of blacks lived in metropolitan areas in 1999, with 55 percent in central cities.22 This shift of the black population from

the relative isolation of the rural South to urban centers in the North and elsewhere turned

national attention to problems and tensions

that had previously existed mainly in the South.

Counting Minorities

The decennial census. The counting of minorities began virtually at the inception of the

Republic. A constitutional requirement established the United States as the first country to

provide for “a regular periodic enumeration of

its inhabitants.”23 In order to determine each

State’s share of direct taxes and congressional

representation, a nationwide census of the

population on a regular basis was established

by the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall

be apportioned among the several States

which may be included within this

Union, according to their respective

Numbers, which shall be determined by

adding to the whole Number of free

Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding

Indians not taxed, three fifths of all

other Persons. The actual Enumeration

shall be made within three Years after
18

the first Meeting of the Congress of

the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such

Manner as they shall by Law direct.

(Article 1, Section 2) 24

Since 1790, when the first decennial census was undertaken, there have been numerous

approaches to counting various racial and ethnic groups. (See box on p. 19.) Many of the

changes in the census questions coincide roughly

with immigration milestones. For instance, in

1850, after the substantial Irish immigration

got under way, a question was asked about the

country of birth. The census of 1870 specifically counted Chinese just as concerns over

Chinese contract labor were arising.

In 1910, a question was added about the

native language of individuals (“mother

tongue,” in the terminology of the day). This

was an attempt to identify more clearly the

ethnic groups coming to the United States from

eastern and southern Europe. Many of these

immigrants were coming from the great

multiethnic empires of Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany, and it was felt that the question on country of origin was simply inadequate, if not altogether misleading, as a means

of classifying these new émigrés by origin.25

Beginning in 1960, Hispanics were identified

by the census, and in each following decade,

the number and variety of groups that were

counted increased.

In most censuses, the enumerators determined the race of respondents. Beginning with

the 1970 census, however, the respondents

themselves identified their race and ethnicity

category. (The 1970 census was also the first

to be conducted primarily by mail; prior censuses had relied on personal visits by enumerators.)

At various times, the census has attempted

to identify people of what is now termed multiracial ancestry. For instance, in 1850 a category designated “mulatto” was included. In

1870, this was expanded to include the categories of “quadroon” and “octoroon.” In 1930,

however, the interviewer’s instructions did not

provide for any mixed-race categories. Instead, people were categorized into a limited

number of race and ethnic classifications. Essentially, the rule was that any combination of

white and any other racial ancestry was reported as the race of the parent who was not

white.26 Seventy years later, in 2000, the census once again gave respondents the opportunity to be identified as having multiracial ancestry by allowing them to check more than

one race category.

In the mid-19th century, questions were

added to several censuses to measure a nonrace

and nonethnic minority—persons with certain kinds of disabilities. These were the blind,

the deaf, the mute, the mentally ill, and the

retarded. No further attempt was made to

identify persons with disabilities until 1970,

when a question was added regarding work disabilities. This question was further refined over

the decades until, in 2000, the census attempted

to identify persons with physical or mental

conditions, or both, that impacted their lives.

The Current Population Survey. The Current

Population Survey (CPS) is an ongoing monthly

sample survey, conducted for the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, that collects information on the employment status of persons. BLS uses this information to produce monthly estimates of employment and unemployment.27 The survey

is also the primary intercensal source for demographic and other socio-economic information on the population. Over time, it has

become an important source of data on many

of the Nation’s minority groups.

The origins of the CPS date back to the

late 1930s, when initial efforts were made to

measure unemployment. Much of the developmental work during this period was done by

the Works Progress Administration (WPA).

By the early 1940s, the effort had been shifted

to the Census Bureau. During the war years,

the Census Bureau redesigned the sample and,

in 1945, revised the questionnaire.28

These early questionnaires collected demographic data on household members similar to

that which is collected today. For instance, a

CPS questionnaire from June 1946 asked about

the respondent’s sex, age at last birthday, and

“color.” Under “color,” three entries were allowed: White, Negro, and other. In 1952, this

category was renamed “race,” although the same

information was still collected.

In April 1973, a category labeled “ethnicity” was added, and the interviewer was instructed to indicate a numeric code that corresponded to the ethnic origin that the respondent identified from a flashcard. While “race”

was a term used to indicate a division of the

population into groups distinguished by physical characteristics, “ethnicity” was a concept
19

1790 Free whites; and slaves

1800 Free whites (except Indians not taxed); and slaves

1810 Free whites (except Indians not taxed); and slaves

1820 Free whites (except Indians not taxed); foreigners not naturalized; free colored

persons; and slaves

1830 Free whites; slaves; and free colored

1840 Free whites; slaves; free colored; deaf, dumb, and insane whites; and deaf, dumb,

and insane colored

1850 White; black; mulatto; country of birth; deaf, dumb, and insane whites; and deaf,

dumb, and insane coloreds

1860 White; black; mulatto; country of birth; number of slaves; deaf, dumb, and insane

whites; and deaf, dumb, and insane coloreds

1870 White; black; mulatto; quadroon; octoroon;1 Chinese; Indian; country of birth;

foreign-born parentage; and deaf, dumb, and insane

1880 White; black; mulatto; quadroon; octoroon; Chinese; Indian; country of birth;

and country of birth of parents

1890 White; black; mulatto; quadroon; octoroon; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; country

of birth; and country of birth of parents

1900 White; black; mulatto; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; country of birth; country of

birth of parents; and year of immigration

1910 White; black; mulatto; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; other; country of birth;

country of birth of parents; native language; and English fluency

1920 White; black; mulatto; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; other; country of birth;

country of birth of parents; native language; native language of parents; and

English fluency

1930 White; black; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; Mexican; country of birth; country of

birth of parents; native language; and English fluency2

1940 White; black; mulatto; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; Filipino; Hindu; Korean; country of birth; citizenship of the foreign-born; and country of birth of parents

Year Information collected (using terminology of the time)

Selected information on personal characteristics collected by decennial census by year

1

 According to the 1870 census instructions, “the word ‘black’ should be used to describe those persons

who have three-fourths or more black blood (sic); ‘mulatto,’ those persons who have from three-eighths to fiveeighths black blood (sic); ‘quadroon,’ those persons who have one-fourth black blood (sic); and ‘octoroon,’

those persons who have one-eighth or any trace of black blood (sic).” 2

 The 1930 census had specific instructions for reporting race. “A person of mixed white and Negro blood was

to be returned as Negro, no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood; someone part Indian and part Negro

also was to be listed as Negro unless the Indian blood predominated and the person was generally accepted as

an Indian in the community. A person of mixed white and Indian blood was to be returned as an Indian, except

where the Indian blood is very small or where he or she was regarded as white in the community.”
20

1950 White; Negro; American Indian; Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; Hawaiian; part Hawaiian; Aleut, Eskimo, and so forth; country of birth; and country of

birth of parents

1960 White; Negro or Black; Indian (American); Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; Hawaiian; Korean; other; country of birth; parents’ place of birth; and Hispanic origin

1970 White; Asian Indian; Black or Negro; Hawaiian; Japanese; Guamanian; Chinese;

Samoan; Filipino; Eskimo; Korean; Aleut; Vietnamese; Indian (American); other;

Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or

South American, other Spanish, none of these); country of birth; language spoken at home; ancestry; and work disability.

1980 White; Black or Negro; Indian (American); Eskimo; Aleut; Chinese;

Japanese; Filipino; Asian Indian; Hawaiian; Samoan; Korean; Guamanian; Vietnamese; other race; Spanish/Hispanic origin (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,

Central or South American, other Spanish, none of these); country of birth;

ancestry or ethnic origin; language spoken at home; English fluency; and disability.

1990 White; Black or Negro; Indian (American); Eskimo; Aleut; Chinese; Japanese;

Filipino; Asian Indian; Hawaiian; Samoan; Korean; Guamanian; Vietnamese; other

Asian and Pacific Islander; other race; Spanish/Hispanic origin; country of birth;

ancestry or ethnic origin; language spoken at home; English fluency; and disability.

2000 White; Black or Negro; Indian (American); Eskimo; Aleut; Chinese;

Japanese; Filipino; Asian Indian; Hawaiian; Samoan; Korean; Guamanian; Vietnamese; other Asian and Pacific Islander; other race; multiracial; Spanish/Hispanic origin; country of birth; ancestry or ethnic origin; language spoken at

home; English fluency; and disability.

Year Information collected (using terminology of the time)

Selected information on personal characteristics collected by decennial census by year

that divided the population into groups according to shared cultural, linguistic, or national

origin characteristics. Thus, “ethnicity” was a

concept that could cut across racial groups. In

September 1974, the label was changed from

“ethnicity” to “origin.” The primary purpose

of this question was to identify persons of Hispanic origin.

In January 1979, in response to OMB Directive 15,29 the race category “other” was

disaggregated into three groups: American Indians, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.

Determining an individual’s race has always been somewhat problematic. According

to the American Anthropological Association, “The concept of race is a social and

cultural construction, with no basis in human

biology—race can simply not be tested or

proven scientifically.”30

Until the late 1970s (as was the case with

the decennial census until 1970), the interviewer determined race. Following are the

instructions concerning the determination and

coding of race issued in 1961:31

The codes used for race: “W” for

white, “Neg.” for Negro, and “OT” for

Other. Record Mexicans, Puerto

Ricans, and other persons of LatinAmerican descent as white, unless they

are definitely of Negro or other nonwhite race.

Enter “Neg.” for Negroes and for

persons of mixed white and Negro parentage. A person of mixed American

Indian, and Negro blood should be entered as “Negro,” unless you [the interviewer] know that the Indian blood
21

very definitely predominated and that

he is regarded in the community as an

Indian. Enter “OT” for races other

than white or Negro, such as Japanese,

Chinese, American Indian, Korean,

Hindu, Eskimo, etc.

For persons of mixed parentage:

1) Mixture of white and nonwhite

races, report race of nonwhite parent

2) Mixture of nonwhite races, report according to the race of the father.

You can usually determine race by

observation, but should inquire in the

case of servants, hired hands, or other

persons unrelated to the household head.

While these instructions provided a systematic way of categorizing individuals by race,

the classifications were rather arbitrary and

dependent on the enumerator’s preconceptions. And in the case of mixed parentage,

that is, white and nonwhite or any combination of nonwhites, the classification directions

were inconsistent.

Beginning in October 1978, the interviewer

was no longer permitted to determine the race

of household members by observation. Instead, the interviewer was required to ask the

household respondent the race of each household member, presenting the respondent with

a flashcard that listed racial categories. The

purpose of this change was to provide more

accurate estimates of characteristics by race.

According to interviewer instructions:32

It is important that you ask the question in all cases even though the

respondent’s race may seem obvious.

Studies have indicated that there is a

significant difference in the recording

of racial categories between the procedures of asking race as opposed to marking it by observation. What may seem

obvious to the observer is in some cases

not what the respondent considers himself/herself. Misrecorded cases potentially have a serious impact on the quality of the final CPS data. Also, some

households are comprised of persons of

different races. The assumption that

all household or family members are of

the same race as the respondent is not

valid.

Like the determination of race, the determination of “origin” was left up to the respondent. He or she was shown a flashcard and

asked to pick the appropriate origin or descent. The origin question was asked in addition to the race question. According to the

interviewer’s manual:33

Origin or descent refers to the national or cultural group from which a

person is descended and is determined

by the nationality or lineage of a

person’s ancestors. There is no set rule

as to how many generations are to be

taken into account in determining origin. A respondent may report origin

based on the origin of a parent, grandparent, or some far-removed ancestor.

During the last CPS revision, which began

in 1986 and terminated when the current, redesigned survey system and questionnaire were

placed in service in 1994, questions having to

do with the demographic characteristics of

household members were reviewed and revised

where appropriate. The questions on race and

origin, however, remained virtually unchanged.34

Publication of Information on

Minority Workers

Late 19th and early 20th century. During this

period, data collection methods were crude and

limited in scope by today’s standards. As a

result, studies frequently looked at conditions

in limited geographic areas, and the data used

were often of an anecdotal nature.

In May 1897, the Department of Labor

(the name at the time of the Federal agency

that would eventually evolve into today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics) published a bulletin

entitled “Conditions of the Negro in Various

Cities,” by George G. Bradford. The study

focused on the very high mortality rates of

blacks, as well as the characteristics of black

families.

In 1898, the Department of Labor published W. E. B. Du Bois’ first study on African

Americans, “The Negroes of Farm-ville, Virginia.” In 1899, the Department published

another of Du Bois’ works, “The Negro in the

Black Belt,” which was based on his students’

experiences. (Du Bois was a professor of sociology at the University of Atlanta.)

In 1901, three more black studies, two by

William Taylor Thom, and the third by Du

Bois, were published, and another two were

issued the next year (1902). For the next
22

decade and a half, little was published in the

way of minority studies, as what was to become the Bureau of Labor Statistics underwent

several reorganizations. Finally, in 1918 (by

which time the Bureau of Labor Statistics had

become part of a new Department of Labor),

publication of studies on blacks resumed. (See

box below.)

In the February 1918 edition of the Bureau’s

Monthly Review, a study by Abraham Epstein,

entitled “The Negro Migrant in Pittsburgh,”

appeared. The migration of blacks from the

South had begun to put a strain on the communities in the North. This study focused on the

increase of blacks within the city of Pittsburgh, with the goal of producing information

that would prove useful to other northern cities experiencing significant increases in black

population.

In 1920, the Monthly Labor Review (the

name of the Monthly Review was changed to

Monthly Labor Review in July 1918) published

an article examining the effect of black labor

in the stove industry. The article argued in

favor of the “cordial acceptance” of the black

worker within this industry, while describing

the black laborer’s difficulties. The article further described black people as a part of American society, as legitimate as any other citizens

of the country and having the same common

needs. (It would appear that the editorial policy

for the Monthly Labor Review in the early

part of the 20th century gave authors a great

deal more latitude in expressing opinions or

making recommendations regarding social

policy than does today’s politically- and policyneutral Review.)

Blacks were not the only minority group

for which information was presented in the

Monthly Labor Review. A regular feature in

the early years of the Review was the publication of national immigration figures. These

figures were normally published every 2

months, and this continued until 1920. Interestingly, in June of 1918, there was a focus on

Japanese migration for the previous year. A

1920 article looked at the situation in several

western States that had seen an increase in the

number of Mexican laborers. The Department of Labor had issued orders temporarily

admitting Mexicans to alleviate labor shortages within agriculture. As a result, there was a

widespread belief among domestic agricultural

laborers that they were losing jobs to low-wage

Mexican labor. The study found that “in the

25 towns and cities visited...the number of

Mexicans displacing white men was negligible”

and that “a dire and imperative need was met

in making the exceptions and permitting Mexican labor to enter this country on easy terms

to meet the abnormal demand for common

labor.”35 Because immigration from Europe

and elsewhere had practically ceased, the Mexican workers were found to provide an effective alternative to that lost labor source.

The Current Population Survey era. The Current Population Survey era. As noted

above, the CPS is an extremely rich source of

Division of Negro Economics

World War I had brought a great many blacks to the cities, particularly in the North,

to fill labor needs. In 1921, a Monthly Labor Review article examined a division of the

Department of Labor that devoted itself to the results of this migration, and the situations it created. The Division of Negro Economics was responsible for looking into the

problems that resulted when large groups of black workers sought jobs in northern defense

plants.1 The Division’s director was Dr. George E. Haynes and, under his direction, 11

State committees and about 225 local county and city committees, with a membership

numbering more than 1,000, were appointed. The work of these committees was to

promote a national campaign “to create good feeling between the races, and to have both

white and Negro citizens understand and cooperate with the purpose and plans of the

department.”2 The division published an indepth report on the industrial experiences of

blacks during and after World War I that included an investigation into race troubles in

Chicago. This division contributed to normalizing race relations during the early 20th

century. It was the first of its kind to attempt such work, and was the forerunner of later

Federal programs to promote black equality.

1 See U.S. Department of Labor, 2000.

2

 See “Industrial Relations,” 1921, p.140.
23

demographic information for a wide variety

of topics, including the labor force. It is not

feasible, therefore, to present an exhaustive

account of all published data from the CPS

dealing with minorities here. This section will

attempt merely to highlight some milestones

in the publication of labor force data for minorities.

Labor force data by race from the CPS

were first published in 1950 (the data were for

1949).36 The estimates, which reported the

“color” of workers, were expressed in percentages, not numbers, because the population controls needed to produce estimates of levels by

race had not yet been developed. In January

1953, population controls based on the 1950

decennial census were introduced into the CPS

estimation process and, later in the year (September), the process was further improved so

that estimates by race could be produced. In

1955, employment levels for whites and nonwhites were first published.37 (It should be noted

that such data are available back to 1954.38 )

At first, data on race were published only

for whites and a catchall group called nonwhites. For years, the nonwhite group was

used to represent blacks because the overwhelming majority of nonwhites in the United States

were blacks (92 percent in 1960 and 89 percent in 1970.) By 1980, however, blacks as a

proportion of the total nonwhite group had

shrunk to 84 percent. Thus, the nonwhite

category had only limited value in analyzing

changes in labor force activity either among

blacks or among the other race groups, including Asians, Pacific Islanders, and American

Indians. These other groups tended to have

significantly different labor force characteristics than did blacks. Thus, in 1983 BLS began

to publish data for blacks only. Black-only

data also were computed for many series going

back to 1972. For historical continuity, however, the Bureau continued to publish some

basic series for the group now called “black

and other.”39

Interestingly, while the official change to

the publication of black-only data came in

1983, there are examples of data for blacks

being published almost a decade earlier. In the

April 1974 issue of the BLS publication Employment and Earnings, Negro-only data were

referred to for the first time in the “Concepts” section of the Technical Note.40 The

same publication contained a table with quarterly data for blacks only and for Hispanics.41

However, data for the combined “black and

other” group continued to appear in the Department of Labor’s monthly Employment

Situation press release until the issuance of

January 1982 data. That was when 1980 census population controls were incorporated into

the CPS estimation procedures and data for

blacks only and for Hispanics first appeared as

a regular part of the monthly press release.42

Monthly data for blacks only did not appear in

Employment and Earnings for another year,

until the January 1983 estimates were published.43 Monthly data for the “black and

other” group also continued to be published in

Employment and Earnings for about another

decade.

Current Data on Minority Workers

Over time, the scope and variety of data published by BLS for black and Hispanic workers

have increased enormously. This section presents an overview of these data and some of

the major findings. It is intended to illustrate

the range of information available, rather than

being a comprehensive analysis of the status

of minorities.

Labor force participation rates. In 2000, there

was little difference among labor force participation rates for blacks (65.8 percent), Hispanics (68.6), and whites (67.4 percent). However, there were sizable differences among

these groups when the rates by gender were

compared. (See table 1-2.)

Labor force participation rates for black

men (69.0 percent) continued to be lower than

those for Hispanic or white men (80.6 percent

and 75.4 percent, respectively). This same

pattern of differences (Hispanic and white men

as more likely than black men to be in the

labor force) was true for every age group as

well. Among women, labor force participation rates were higher for black women (63.2

percent) than for their Hispanic (56.9 percent) or white (59.8 percent) counterparts.

For each age category except teenagers, Hispanic women’s participation rates were lower

than those of the other two groups.

The overall participation rate for blacks

has grown from 60.2 percent in 1973 to nearly

66 percent in recent years.44 (See table 1-3.)

This growth has been solely due to the increased participation of black women in the

labor force: for black women, participation

rates rose by nearly 14 percentage points, to

63.2 percent, from 1973 to 2000, while rates
24

for black men fell by 4.4 percentage points.

The pattern of change was similar among

whites but, among Hispanics, men’s participation rates did not decline as much as those of

black or white men.

Unemployment. From 1992 to 2000, jobless

rates have declined dramatically for the major

race and ethnic groups, with the decline for

blacks being greater than those for the other

two groups. For blacks, the rate dropped 6.6

percentage points, while that for Hispanics

fell by 5.9 points, and that for whites declined

by 3.1 points. (See table 1-4.) The decrease in

unemployment among blacks may partly reflect gains for both men and women in the

proportions with schooling beyond high school:

Percent of the labor force 25 years and older with

more than a high school diploma

1992 2000

Black:

Men .......................... 39.9 49.2

Women ..................... 44.6 54.2

Hispanic:

Men .......................... 29.4 30.9

Women ..................... 34.7 38.0

White:

Men .......................... 52.7 57.8

Women ..................... 52.6 60.0

Yet, despite the impbrovements in the unemployment rates for blacks and Hispanics,

blacks continue to be a little more than twice

as likely as whites to be unemployed, while

Hispanics are not quite 2 times as likely as

whites to be unemployed.

Education and occupation. Education is an

important predictor of labor market outcomes.

The more educated the worker, the more likely

he or she is to be in the labor force, and the less

likely to be unemployed. Moreover, when

those with more education are employed, they

are much more likely to work in a high-paying

managerial or professional occupation.

Although whites continue to have more

education than do either blacks or Hispanics,

black women and men have made remarkable

educational progress in recent years. As the

text table above shows, close to 40 percent of

black men and 45 percent of black women in

the labor force had at least some education

beyond the high school level in 1992. By

2000, these proportions had grown to about

49 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

Because education level is an important

factor in the occupational self-selection of

workers, it is not surprising that the occupational distributions of blacks, Hispanics, and

whites vary greatly. For instance, table 1-5

shows that white men are far more likely to be

managers or professionals (29.2 percent) than

are black or Hispanic men (18.5 percent and

11.4 percent, respectively). Among women,

24.8 percent of blacks and 17.8 percent of

Hispanics are managers or professionals, compared with 33.4 percent of whites.

Earnings. Education and occupation, of course,

impact earnings. Among full-time wage and

salary workers, the median weekly earnings of

blacks ($468) and Hispanics ($396) were much

lower than those of whites ($591). For both

blacks and Hispanics, the earnings gap is more

pronounced among men than among women—

the median for black men was 75.2 percent of

that of white men and that of Hispanic men

was 61.9 percent of that of their white counterparts. Among women, blacks earned 85.8

percent of what white women earned, while

Hispanics earned 72.8 percent. (See table 1-6.)

Since 1986, the earnings gap between black

and white men has actually closed slightly.

However, the gap between the earnings of the

other minority groups (black women and Hispanics) and those of their white counterparts

has grown.

Among workers paid hourly rates, there

was very little difference among whites, blacks,

and Hispanics in the proportions who worked

for a wage at or below the prevailing Federal

minimum wage ($5.15 per hour) in 2000. Only

about 3.2 percent of Hispanic hourly paid

workers earned the minimum or less, as did 3.6

percent of blacks and 3.8 percent of whites.

Labor force projections, 1998-2008. Labor force projections, 1998-2008.45 With

the exception of profound social and cultural

changes such as those that led to the surge of

women into the labor force in the 1970s and

early 1980s, population growth is the main

engine behind labor force growth. The civilian

noninstitutional population will continue to

increase over the 1998-2008 period, at roughly

the same rate as during the previous 10 years.

Numbers of Asians (and others) and Hispanics

are projected to continue to grow much faster

than those of whites or blacks. One of the

major factors underlying the growth in the

Hispanic and Asian populations in recent years

has been the massive migration to the United
25

States that started in the 1970s and continues

today. And, while immigration is expected to

decrease slightly between 1998 and 2008, projected net immigration will remain a sizable

proportion of population growth over the

1998-2008 projection period.

All of the race and ethnic groups in the

labor force are projected to continue to grow

between 1998 and 2008, but somewhat more

slowly than over the preceding 10 years. Of

the four race and ethnic groups shown in table

1-7, the “Asian and other” labor force is projected to increase the most rapidly, followed

by Hispanics, and then blacks. As a result, by

2008 the Hispanic labor force is projected to

overtake the black labor force in size. (The

Asian labor force is less than half the size of

either the black or the Hispanic labor force.)

For all three groups, much of the change in

labor force size is due to population growth,

which, for Hispanics and Asians, will result

from continued immigration.

 Despite gains in the numbers in the labor

force, relatively little change is anticipated in

labor force participation rates overall during

the 1998-2008 period (barring, of course,

major secular or cyclical changes, or both.)

Indeed, as table 1-8 shows, the labor force participation rates for Hispanics and Asians are

projected to remain virtually unchanged between 1998 and 2008. In contrast, the participation rate for blacks is expected to grow

by 0.7 percentage point, and that for whites,

by 0.6 percentage point.

Immigrants. Foreign-born46 workers make up

nearly 13 percent of the U.S. workforce. (See

chart 1-1.) The labor force participation rates

of the foreign-born, overall, are generally lower

than those of their native-born counterparts,

largely because foreign-born women are less

likely to be in the labor force than are nativeborn women. (See table 1-9.)

The labor force participation rates of the

foreign-born also vary by race and ethnicity.

Among non-Hispanic whites, the foreign-born

generally have lower participation rates than

did natives, while, among non-Hispanic blacks

and Hispanics, the foreign-born are more likely

to be in the labor force than are their native

counterparts. The participation rates of nonHispanic foreign-born Asians are about the

same as those of their native-born counterparts.

Foreign-born

(12.6 percent)

Native-born

(87.4 percent)

Chart 1-1. Native-born and foreign-born shares of U.S. labor

force, 2000 annual averages
26

Foreign-born workers are about as likely

to be unemployed as are the native-born. (See

table 1-10.) Among the major race and ethnic groups, the unemployment rate among

foreign-born non-Hispanic whites is about the

same as that of their native-born counterparts. The jobless rates among foreign-born

Asians (non-Hispanic), blacks (non-Hispanic), and Hispanics are lower than, or about

the same as, the rates for their native-born

counterparts.

Given the poorer educational backgrounds

of many immigrants, it is not surprising that

foreign-born workers were more likely than

the native-born to be in occupations typified

by low earnings. (See table 1-11.) In 2000,

about 19 percent of the foreign-born were

employed in service occupations, and the

same proportion worked as operators, fabricators, and laborers. The proportion of native-born workers employed in each of these

two categories was 13 percent. In contrast,

the foreign-born were substantially less likely

to be employed in high-paying occupations,

such as managerial and professional specialty

occupations, than were the native-born (23

percent versus 31 percent, respectively). Not

surprisingly, therefore, the median weekly

earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and

salary workers were $447, or 76 percent of

the $591 that native-born workers earned

weekly in 2000. The median earnings of foreign-born women were about 81 percent those

of their native-born counterparts, while the

median for foreign-born men was 71 percent

of that of their native-born counterparts. (See

table 1-12.)

How minorities spend their money. Expenditure amounts are dependent on income and, to

a degree, on household size (Hispanic consumer

units have, on average, more members than do

black ones). Consequently, differences in expenditure patterns across demographic groups

may be clearer if the expenditures are expressed

in percentages of the total, rather than dollar

amounts. (See box above for a description of

the expenditure data source, the Consumer

Expenditure Survey.)

Comparisons by race and Hispanic origin.

There are some similarities between black and

nonblack consumer units. For example, each

has about the same family size, on average.

The Consumer Expenditure Survey

The data shown in this section are derived from the results of the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Surveys of 1994 (Hispanic comparison only) and 1999. The data collected

are the most detailed source of consumer expenditures by demographic characteristic

(age, income, and so forth) compiled by the Federal Government. The survey consists of

two components: A quarterly Interview and a biweekly Diary. Participants in the Interview survey are asked to recall expenditures on a variety of items for the 3 months prior

to the interview. Participants in the Diary survey are given a diary in which to fill out all

their expenditures for a specified week. This diary is retrieved and replaced by a fresh one

for the second consecutive (and final) week of participation. The samples for each

survey are independently selected, so that no family is chosen to participate in both

surveys.

Characteristics of the consumer unit are based on those reported for the reference

person. 1 These include race and ethnicity. For race, the reference person may be

reported to be white; black; American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo; Asian or Pacific Islander;

or of an other race. As for ethnicity, the reference person may be described as a member

of one of several European ethnicities (English, Irish, French, German, and so on); as

African-American; as one of several Hispanic ethnicities; or as a member of an “other”

ethnic group. Hispanic ethnicities for which data are collected are: Mexican; MexicanAmerican; Chicano; Puerto Rican; Cuban; Central or South American; and other Spanish.

1 The reference person is the first member mentioned by the respondent when asked to “start with the name

of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents the home.” It is with respect to this person that the

relationship of other consumer unit members is determined.
27

(Black consumer units have more children, but

fewer persons over age 65.) They also have

comparable numbers of earners. However, there

are many differences. For example, reported

income before taxes47 is much lower for black

families ($30,427) than for nonblack families

($45,688). Also, fewer than one-half of black

consumer units reside in an “owned dwelling,”

compared with more than two-thirds of nonblack ones. Blacks are about 3 years younger,

on average, than are nonblacks; have fewer

vehicles, on average; and are less likely to have

attended college. Given these differences, it is

not surprising to see differences in expenditure patterns for these groups. (See tables 1-13

and 1-14.)

Blacks allocate a larger share of total expenditures (10 percent) to food at home than

do nonblacks (8 percent). It is likely that this

difference reflects the fact that food needs for

black and nonblack consumer units are similar,

but that the income for blacks is lower, on

average. However, each group spends about

the same share (between 5 and 6 percent) on

food away from home.

Data for housing are more challenging to

analyze. As noted, black consumer units are

much more likely to be renters than are nonblack consumer units. Also, many renters have

utilities included in their rents. Therefore,

com-paring actual expenditure levels for shelter components is not appropriate. To adjust

for this, expenditures for owned dwellings;

rented dwellings; and utilities, fuels, and public

services can be summed together into “basic

housing.” When the summed expenditures are

examined, it is found that black consumers

allocate a larger share to housing (29 percent)

than do nonblack consumers (25 percent).

Blacks also spend larger shares on apparel

and services. However, shares for transportation are nearly identical for consumers of all

races (19 percent). Black consumers allocate

smaller shares for healthcare and entertainment.

Another measure of the status of different

groups in the economy is their overall purchasing power—that is, the percentage of total expenditures in the entire economy accounted for by each of the different groups.

These percentages are called “aggregate expenditure shares.”

As seen in table 1-14, blacks accounted for

12 percent of all consumer units in 1999, but

for only 9 percent of total annual expenditures. This difference, of course, is due largely

to the fact that black income is lower, on average, than nonblack income. Thus, the gap

between the proportion of the population and

the proportion of total consumption becomes

another means of measuring the relative wellbeing of the different groups. It is particularly

interesting to note that this measure can indicate relative well-being in certain specific areas of consumption. For instance, black consumers account for 10 percent of total foodat-home expenditures and 7 percent of homeowner expenses. In contrast, they account for

16 percent of renter expenses, largely due to

their disproportionate status as renters. Overall though, they account for less than 10 percent of total shelter spending.48

Like blacks compared with nonblacks, Hispanics report less income, on average, than do

non-Hispanics. (See table 1-15.) Hispanic

consumer units allocate a larger share of total

expenditures to food at home (11 percent)

than do other units (8 percent), but this could

be a function of family size as well as income.

They allocate a slightly higher share to shelter

and utilities (27 percent) than do non-Hispanics (25 percent), and the same is true for apparel and services (6.3 percent compared with

4.6 percent) and transportation (21 percent

compared with 19 percent). However, they

allocate smaller shares to healthcare and entertainment.

Aggregate expenditure shares are important for Hispanics for two reasons. First, they

show how Hispanics fare compared with nonHispanics currently (1999). (See table 1-16.)

In 1999, Hispanics accounted for 8.4 percent

of all consumer units. However, they accounted

for only 7.5 percent of all consumer expenditures. They accounted for 10 percent of all

food-at-home expenditures, and 8 percent of

shelter expenditures. Like blacks, they account for a smaller share (6 percent) of owned

dwelling expenditures and a much larger share

of spending for rented dwellings (14 percent).

They account for 10 percent of expenditures

for apparel and services, perhaps because of

their larger family sizes and larger number of

children, but for only 4.8 percent of expenditures for healthcare and 5.5 percent of those

for entertainment.

Second, Hispanics have been a growing segment of the population, and their share of

total expenditures has grown too. (See table

1-17.) Accounting for fewer than 8 million

consumer units in 1994, they numbered more

than 9 million consumer units in 1999, an
28

increase of about 18 percent. In the same

period, their share of aggregate expenditures

rose from 6.3 percent to 7.5 percent.

Counting Minorities: New Directions

Early results of Census 2000 clearly show that

the U.S. population is very diverse racially and

ethnically. (See box on p. 29.) Additionally,

legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has brought other kinds of

minority groups to public attention. Consequently, the Federal Government is endeavoring to improve its ability to collect data that

will reflect the diversity of the population more

accurately.

In 1977, the U.S. Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) issued standards for the reporting of statistical information on race and

ethnicity by Federal agencies. Commonly referred to as “Directive No. 15,” these standards provided the first consistent method for

reporting race and ethnicity in the Federal

Government. The standards required the collection of Hispanic data separately from race

and, at a minimum, the collection of data on

four racial categories—White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; and Asian or

Pacific Islander.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the standards

came under criticism from those who believed

that the minimum categories set forth in Directive No. 15 did not reflect the increasing

diversity of our Nation’s population that has

resulted primarily from growth in immigration and in interracial marriages. In response

to these criticisms, OMB announced in July

1993 that it would undertake a comprehensive review of the categories for data on race

and ethnicity.

This review, conducted over a 4-year period, was done in collaboration with the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards, which OMB established in March 1994 to facilitate the participation of Federal agencies in the review. The

Committee, through its Research Working

Group, carried out a research program to evaluate various proposals for revising the standards. This extensive research effort, including three national tests, examined alternative

approaches for questions to collect data on

race and ethnicity. The Committee recommended changes in the standards based on the

research results, as well as on the consideration of related public comments and testimony.

OMB adopted many of the changes to the

standards recommended by the Committee in

its new standards released on October 30, 1997,

including the following:

1. A two-question format for the collection of data on race and ethnicity should be

used in all cases involving self-identification,

and the ethnicity question should precede the

race question.

2. Individuals should be allowed to select

more than one of the racial categories to identify their racial background.

3. The terms Eskimo and Aleut should be

replaced by the term “Alaska Native.”

4. Central and South American Indians

should now be classified as American Indians.

5. The name of the “Black” category

should be changed to “Black or African American.”

In addition, OMB decided that the “Asian

or Pacific Islander” category should be split

into two categories—“Asian” and “Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” OMB

also changed the term used to refer to Hispanics from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or

Latino.”

In order to comply with the new standards

in the Current Population Survey (CPS), BLS

and the Census Bureau conducted research to

determine the race and ethnicity questions that

meet the requirements of the standards and

provide the most reliable and valid data. This

research included a supplement to the CPS administered in July 2000. The race and ethnicity

questions selected for use in the supplement

were the following:

A. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish?

(1) Yes

(2) No

If the respondent answered yes, then the

interviewer asks for the name of the country

of origin.

B. Please select one or more of the following categories to describe your race.

(1) White

(2) Black, African American, or Negro

(3) American Indian or Alaska Native

(4) Asian

(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander
29

If the respondent indicates that his or her

race is “other” (a category not shown to the

respondent), he or she was asked for morespecific information.

Once the results of this test are analyzed

and the new questions finalized, a new methodology for determining race and ethnicity

will be implemented in the CPS in 2003.

With regard to the measurement of persons with disabilities, BLS, along with the Department of Labor’s Presidential Task Force

on the Employment of Adults with Disabilities, is leading a multi-agency effort to design

a short set of questions for use in a household

survey (the CPS) that would identify persons

with disabilities. This effort was mandated in

1998 by Executive Order 13078, which directed BLS to develop a statistically reliable

method of determining the employment rate

of adults with disabilities.

Work on the project began in 1999 with a

careful examination of all the major disability

survey instruments. The exhaustive review of

these instruments revealed serious problems

with the question sets that were used. Consequently, BLS had to conduct further research

and testing of individual disability questions

found in various surveys to try to construct a

minimum set of questions needed to identify

people with disabilities.

The set of questions identified in this phase

was then placed in a major, nationwide survey

(the National Comorbidity Survey—or NCS)

for testing in a live household survey environment. Because the NCS focuses on disability

issues, particularly mental illness, a rigorous

comparison of the results from the test questions with those from the regular NCS questions will reveal how well (or poorly) the test

questions identify persons with disabilities, and

how the questions might be improved.

Conclusion

The race and ethnic mix of the Nation’s population has diversified considerably since colonial times, as shown in table 1-18. The ways

in which minorities have been counted, first

in the decennial censuses and then in the CPS,

have evolved over time, reflecting, in part, a

need for data to describe this growing diversity. The waves of immigrants from different parts of the world obviously have spurred

the development of questions in the census

asking about country of origin. The migration of blacks from the South focused national attention on the problems of blacks

and created a demand for more data.

It took time, of course, for this demand

to be met. Statistical theory, survey methCensus 2000

The 2000 Decennial Census contained questions on race and ethnicity similar to the

ones being proposed for inclusion in the CPS. Respondents were thus able to report

according to the revised race and ethnic guidelines from OMB. The results were released

in early 2001. The population’s race and ethnic profile at the time of the census (April

2000) is shown below:

 Percent

Total .................................................................. 100.0

One race ......................................................... 97.6

White ....................................................... 75.1

Black ........................................................ 12.3

American Indian or Alaskan Native .... .9

Asian ........................................................ 3.6

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander ..... .1

Other ........................................................ 5.5

Two or more races........................................ 2.4

Hispanic origin1 ............................................. 12.5

1

 Hispanics can be of any race.

SOURCE: “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin,” Census 2000 Brief (Census Bureau, March

2001).
30

odologies, and automated data processing technologies needed to be developed and refined.

The classification methodology for race has

changed. At first, it was assumed that census

enumerators and CPS interviewers could distinguish racial groups simply by observation and

community standards. As researchers began to

realize that race was much more complex than

a set of physical attributes, interviewers were

instructed to ask respondents about their race.

The situation has now evolved to the point

that respondents can choose to identify themselves with more than one racial group, thus

creating a new category—multiracial.

What does the future hold? Probably more

of the same. Barring a return to the exclusionary immigration policies of the 1920s, the

United States likely will continue to be a nation in which increasing racial and ethnic diversity is the rule, not the exception. As in

the past, people of diverse backgrounds will

continue to contribute to a common culture,

while maintaining many elements of their own

cultural identities that help link them to their

origins. As researchers, policymakers, and the

public try to understand this process and deal

with some of the problems that will inevitably

arise (if past history is any indication), there

will be continuing demands to develop and refine statistical measures that better illuminate

the changing race and ethnic characteristics of

America’s population.
31

Table 1-1. Geographic area of birth of the foreign-born population in the United States, 1850 to 2000

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 19601 19701 19801 19901 20002

Total foreign born

(in thousands) ........................................... 2,244.6 4,138.7 5,567.2 6,679.9 9,249.5 10,341.3 13,515.9 13,920.7 14,204.1 9,738.1 9,619.3 14,079.9 19,767.3 28,379.0

 Percent distribution

Total ........................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Europe ................................................. 90.5 92.0 88.8 86.1 86.8 85.9 87.4 85.6 83.0 74.5 59.7 36.6 22.0 15.3

.... Northern and Western ................... 90.1 91.2 87.0 82.3 78.8 69.7 54.1 44.8 41.2 34.2 27.3 16.9 10.4 –

............ Ireland ................................... 42.8 38.9 33.3 27.8 20.2 15.6 10.0 7.5 5.2 3.5 2.6 1.4 .9 –

.... Southern and Eastern ................... .4 .8 1.7 3.7 7.9 16.2 33.3 40.7 41.7 40.1 32.1 19.5 11.6 –

Asia ..................................................... .1 .9 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 5.0 8.6 18.0 25.2 25.5

.... China ............................................. (3) .9 1.1 1.6 1.2 .8 .4 .3 .3 1.0 1.8 2.0 2.7 –

Latin America ...................................... .9 .9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.1 4.2 5.6 9.3 18.8 31.1 42.5 51.0

.... Mexico ........................................... .6 .7 .8 1.0 .8 1.0 1.6 3.5 4.5 5.9 7.9 15.6 21.7 –

Other ......................................................... 8.5 6.2 9.0 10.9 10.8 11.6 9.1 8.5 9.5 11.1 13.0 14.3 10.3 8.1

1 Indicates sample data.

2 Annual average data from the Current Population Survey.

3 Indicates less than 0.05 percent.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau.

Year

Geographic Area
32

Table 1-2. Labor force status of the population by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, annual averages, 2000

(Numbers in thousands)

 TOTAL

Total, 16 years and older ................... 25,218 16,603 65.8 22,393 15,368 68.6 174,428 117,574 67.4 16 to 19 years ............................... 2,468 967 39.2 2,341 1,083 46.3 12,707 7,075 55.7 20 to 24 years ............................... 2,690 1,932 71.8 2,775 2,155 77.7 6,312 2,800 44.4 25 to 54 years ............................... 14,931 12,155 81.4 13,667 10,928 80.0 97,730 82,796 84.7 55 to 64 years ............................... 2,351 1,227 52.2 1,819 983 54.1 20,324 12,192 60.0 65 years and older ......................... 2,778 322 11.6 1,791 218 12.2 28,947 3,749 13.0

 Men

Total, 16 years and older ................... 11,320 7,816 69.0 11,064 8,919 80.6 84,647 63,861 75.4 16 to 19 years ............................... 1,213 473 39.0 1,205 613 50.9 6,496 3,679 56.6 20 to 24 years ............................... 1,235 906 73.4 1,457 1,299 89.2 7,420 6,308 85.0 25 to 54 years ............................... 6,753 5,699 84.4 6,817 6,295 92.3 48,529 44,984 92.7 55 to 64 years ............................... 1,015 580 57.1 826 573 69.4 9,811 6,692 68.2 65 years and older ......................... 1,105 157 14.2 759 138 18.2 12,390 2,198 17.7

 Women

Total, 16 years and older ................... 13,898 8,787 63.2 11,329 6,449 56.9 89,781 53,714 59.8 16 to 19 years ............................... 1,255 494 39.4 1,136 470 41.4 6,211 3,396 54.7 20 to 24 years ............................... 1,455 1,026 70.5 1,319 856 64.9 7,300 5,455 74.7 25 to 54 years ............................... 8,178 6,455 78.9 6,849 4,633 67.7 49,200 37,813 76.9 55 to 64 years ............................... 1,336 647 48.4 993 410 41.3 10,513 5,500 52.3 65 years and older ......................... 1,673 165 9.9 1,032 80 7.7 16,557 1,550 9.4

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

White Hispanic origin Black

Labor force as

a percent of

population

Labor force Population

Age and sex

Labor force

Labor force as

a percent of

population

Population

Labor force as

a percent of

population

Labor force Population
33

Table 1-3. Labor force participation rates by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, annual averages, 1973-2000

Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women

1973 ................ 60.2 73.4 49.3 60.2 81.5 41.0 60.8 79.4 44.1

1974 ................ 59.8 72.9 49.0 61.1 81.7 42.4 61.4 79.4 45.2

1975 ................ 58.8 70.9 48.8 60.8 80.7 43.2 61.5 78.7 45.9

1976 ................ 59.0 70.0 49.8 60.8 79.6 44.3 61.8 78.4 46.9

1977 ................ 59.8 70.6 50.8 61.6 80.9 44.3 62.5 78.5 48.0

1978 ................ 61.5 71.5 53.1 62.9 81.1 46.6 63.3 78.6 49.4

1979 ................ 61.4 71.3 53.1 63.6 81.3 47.4 63.9 78.6 50.5

1980 ................ 61.0 70.3 53.1 64.0 81.4 47.4 64.1 78.2 51.2

1981 ................ 60.8 70.0 53.5 64.1 80.6 48.3 64.3 77.9 51.9

1982 ................ 61.0 70.1 53.7 63.6 79.7 48.1 64.3 77.4 52.4

1983 ................ 61.5 70.6 54.2 63.8 80.3 47.7 64.3 77.1 52.7

1984 ................ 62.2 70.8 55.2 64.9 80.6 49.7 64.6 77.1 53.3

1985 ................ 62.9 70.8 56.5 64.6 80.4 49.3 65.0 77.0 54.1

1986 ................ 63.3 71.2 56.9 65.4 81.0 50.1 65.5 76.9 55.0

1987 ................ 63.8 71.1 58.0 66.4 81.0 52.0 65.8 76.8 55.7

1988 ................ 63.8 71.0 58.0 67.4 81.9 53.2 66.2 76.9 56.4

1989 ................ 64.2 71.0 58.7 67.6 82.0 53.5 66.7 77.1 57.2

1990 ................ 64.0 71.0 58.3 67.4 81.4 53.1 66.9 77.1 57.4

1991 ................ 63.3 70.4 57.5 66.5 80.3 52.3 66.6 76.5 57.4

1992 ................ 63.9 70.7 58.5 66.8 80.7 52.8 66.8 76.5 57.7

1993 ................ 63.2 69.6 57.9 66.2 80.2 52.1 66.8 76.2 58.0

1994 ................ 63.4 69.1 58.7 66.1 79.2 52.9 67.1 75.9 58.9

1995 ................ 63.7 69.0 59.5 65.8 79.1 52.6 67.1 75.7 59.0

1996 ................ 64.1 68.7 60.4 66.5 79.6 53.4 67.2 75.8 59.1

1997 ................ 64.7 68.3 61.7 67.9 80.1 55.1 67.5 75.9 59.5

1998 ................ 65.6 69.0 62.8 67.9 79.8 55.6 67.3 75.6 59.4

1999 ................ 65.8 68.7 63.5 67.7 79.8 55.9 67.3 75.6 59.6

2000 ................ 65.8 69.0 63.2 68.6 80.6 56.9 67.4 75.4 59.8

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Black Hispanic origin White

Year
34

Table 1-4. Unemployment rates by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, annual averages, 1973-2000

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

1973 ................ 9.4 8.0 11.1 7.5 6.7 9.0 4.3 3.8 5.3

1974 ................ 10.5 9.8 11.3 8.1 7.3 9.4 5.0 4.4 6.1

1975 ................ 14.8 14.8 14.8 12.2 11.4 13.5 7.8 7.2 8.6

1976 ................ 14.0 13.7 14.3 11.5 10.8 12.7 7.0 6.4 7.9

1977 ................ 14.0 13.3 14.9 10.1 9.0 11.9 6.2 5.5 7.3

1978 ................ 12.8 11.8 13.8 9.1 7.7 11.3 5.2 4.6 6.2

1979 ................ 12.3 11.4 13.3 8.3 7.0 10.3 5.1 4.5 5.9

1980 ................ 14.3 14.5 14.0 10.1 9.7 10.7 6.3 6.1 6.5

1981 ................ 15.6 15.7 15.6 10.4 10.2 10.8 6.7 6.5 6.9

1982 ................ 18.9 20.1 17.6 13.8 13.6 14.1 8.6 8.8 8.3

1983 ................ 19.5 20.3 18.6 13.7 13.6 13.8 8.4 8.8 7.9

1984 ................ 15.9 16.4 15.4 10.7 10.5 11.1 6.5 6.4 6.5

1985 ................ 15.1 15.3 14.9 10.5 10.2 11.0 6.2 6.1 6.4

1986 ................ 14.5 14.8 14.2 10.6 10.5 10.8 6.0 6.0 6.1

1987 ................ 13.0 12.7 13.2 8.8 8.7 8.9 5.3 5.4 5.2

1988 ................ 11.7 11.7 11.7 8.2 8.1 8.3 4.7 4.7 4.7

1989 ................ 11.4 11.5 11.4 8.0 7.6 8.8 4.5 4.5 4.5

1990 ................ 11.4 11.9 10.9 8.2 8.0 8.4 4.8 4.9 4.7

1991 ................ 12.5 13.0 12.0 10.0 10.3 9.6 6.1 6.5 5.6

1992 ................ 14.2 15.2 13.2 11.6 11.7 11.4 6.6 7.0 6.1

1993 ................ 13.0 13.8 12.1 10.8 10.6 11.0 6.1 6.3 5.7

1994 ................ 11.5 12.0 11.0 9.9 9.4 10.7 5.3 5.4 5.2

1995 ................ 10.4 10.6 10.2 9.3 8.8 10.0 4.9 4.9 4.8

1996 ................ 10.5 11.1 10.0 8.9 7.9 10.2 4.7 4.7 4.7

1997 ................ 10.0 10.2 9.9 7.7 7.0 8.9 4.2 4.2 4.2

1998 ................ 8.9 8.9 9.0 7.2 6.4 8.2 3.9 3.9 3.9

1999 ................ 8.0 8.2 7.8 6.4 5.6 7.6 3.7 3.6 3.8

2000 ................ 7.6 8.1 7.2 5.7 4.9 6.7 3.5 3.4 3.6

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Black Hispanic origin White

Year
35

Table 1-5. Employed persons by occupation, race, Hispanic origin, and sex, annual averages, 2000Total, 16 years and older (thousands) ............................ 15,334 7,180 8,154 14,492 8,478 6,014 113,475 61,6Percent ........................................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100Managerial and professional specialty ........................... 21.8 18.5 24.8 14.0 11.4 17.8 31.1 29

Executive, administrative, and managerial ............... 9.9 8.9 10.7 7.4 6.3 8.9 15.3 15Professional specialty .............................................. 12.0 9.6 14.1 6.7 5.1 8.9 15.8 13

Technical, sales, and administrative support ................. 29.3 18.8 38.6 24.2 14.9 37.2 29.2 19

Technicians and related support .............................. 3.2 2.6 3.7 2.1 1.7 2.7 3.2 2Sales occupations .................................................... 9.4 7.6 10.9 9.6 7.8 12.1 12.5 11Administrative support, including clerical ................. 16.8 8.5 24.0 12.5 5.5 22.5 13.5 5

 Service occupations ...................................................... 21.5 17.4 25.2 19.8 15.2 26.2 12.4 9

Private household .................................................... .8 (1) 1.4 1.7 .1 3.0 .6 

Protective service .................................................... 3.1 4.7 1.6 1.4 2.0 .6 1.6 2Service, except private household and protective ... 17.7 12.6 22.1 16.6 13.1 21.6 10.2 6

Precision production, craft, and repair ........................... 7.8 14.2 2.1 14.3 22.2 3.3 11.6 19Operators, fabricators, and laborers .............................. 18.5 29.0 9.1 22.1 28.1 13.6 12.9 18

Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors ..... 7.0 8.8 5.5 9.8 9.8 9.7 5.1 6Transportation and material moving occupations ..... 6.0 11.1 1.4 4.6 7.4 .6 3.9 6Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .................................................................. 5.4 9.1 2.2 7.8 11.0 3.3 3.9 5

Farming, forestry, and fishing ......................................... 1.1 2.1 .2 5.6 8.2 1.8 2.8 4

1 Indicates less than 0.05 percent.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Black Hispanic Whi

Occupation

(Percent distribution)

Total Men Women Total Total Men Women 

Me
36

Table 1-6. Median usual weekly earnings1 of full-time2 wage and salary workers,3 by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, annual averages, 1986-2000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

 BlackBoth sexes ............................... $291 $301 $314 $319 $329 $348 $357 $369 $371 $383 $387 $400 $426 

Men .................................... 318 326 347 348 361 375 380 392 400 411 412 432 468 Women ............................... 263 275 288 301 308 323 335 348 346 355 362 375 400 

 Hispanic originBoth sexes ............................... 277 284 290 298 304 312 322 331 324 329 339 351 370 

Men .................................... 299 306 307 315 318 323 339 346 343 350 356 371 390 Women ............................... 241 251 260 269 278 292 302 313 305 305 316 318 337 

 WhiteBoth sexes ............................... 370 383 394 409 424 442 458 475 484 494 506 519 545 

Men .................................... 433 450 465 482 494 506 514 524 547 566 580 595 615 Women ............................... 294 307 318 334 353 373 387 401 408 415 428 444 468 

 EARNINGS RATIOSBlack to white ........................... 78.6 78.6 79.7 78.0 77.6 78.7 77.9 77.7 76.7 77.5 76.5 77.1 78.2 Black men to white men ........... 73.4 72.4 74.6 72.2 73.1 74.1 73.9 74.8 73.1 72.6 71.0 72.6 76.1 Black women to white women ... 89.5 89.6 90.6 90.1 87.3 86.6 86.6 86.8 84.8 85.5 84.6 84.5 85.5 Hispanic to white ...................... 74.9 74.2 73.6 72.9 71.7 70.6 70.3 69.7 66.9 66.6 67.0 67.6 67.9 Hispanic men to white men ....... 69.1 68.0 66.0 65.4 64.4 63.8 66.0 66.0 62.7 61.8 61.4 62.4 63.4 Hispanic women to white women .................................... 82.0 81.8 81.8 80.5 78.8 78.3 78.0 78.1 74.8 73.5 73.8 71.6 72.0 

1 Earnings are expressed in nominal dollars.2 Full-time workers include persons who usually work 35 hours or more a week on their sole, or principal, job.3 Wage and salary workers exclude self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are incorporated.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Characteristic

Year
37

Table 1-7. Civilian labor force by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, 1988, 1998, and projected 2008

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 16 years and older .............. 121,669 137,673 154,576 16,004 13.2 16,903 12.3

 Age

16 to 24 years ........................ 22,536 21,894 25,210 -642 -2.8 3,316 15.1

25 to 54 years ........................ 84,041 98,718 104,133 14,677 17.5 5,415 5.5

55 years and older ................. 15,092 17,062 25,233 1,970 13.1 8,171 47.9

 Sex

Men ........................................ 66,927 73,959 81,132 7,032 10.5 7,173 9.7

Women ................................... 54,742 63,714 73,444 8,972 16.4 9,730 15.3

 Race and Hispanic origin

Black ...................................... 13,205 15,982 19,101 2,777 21.0 3,119 19.5

Hispanic origin ........................ 8,982 14,317 19,585 5,335 59.4 5,268 36.8

Asian and other ...................... 3,708 6,278 8,809 2,570 69.3 2,531 40.3

White ...................................... 104,756 115,415 126,665 10,659 10.2 11,250 9.7

SOURCE: Table 2 in Howard N Fullerton, “Labor force projections to 2008: steady growth and

changing composition,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1999, p. 20.

Characteristic

Civilian labor force Change, 1988-98 Change, 1998-2008

1988 1998 2008,

projected Number Percent Number Percent
38

Table 1-8. Civilian labor force participation rates by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, 1988, 1998, and

projected 2008

(Numbers in thousands)

 Age and sex

Total, 16 years and older .......... 65.9 67.4 67.6 1.5 0.2

16 to 24 years .................... 68.4 65.9 66.2 -2.5 .3

25 to 54 years .................... 82.9 84.1 85.4 1.2 1.3

25 to 34 years ................. 83.3 84.6 85.9 1.3 1.3

35 to 44 years ................. 84.6 84.7 86.0 .1 1.3

45 to 54 years ................. 79.6 82.5 84.3 2.9 1.8

55 years and older... .......... 30.0 31.3 36.8 1.3 5.5

Men .......................................... 76.2 74.9 73.7 -1.3 -1.2

16 to 24 years .................... 72.4 68.4 68.0 -4.0 -.4

25 to 54 years .................... 93.6 91.8 91.3 -1.8 -.5

55 years and older ............. 39.9 39.1 43.5 -.8 4.4

Women ..................................... 56.6 59.8 61.9 3.2 2.1

16 to 24 years .................... 64.5 63.3 64.3 -1.2 1.0

25 to 54 years .................... 72.7 76.5 79.7 3.8 3.2

55 years and older ............. 22.3 25.0 31.2 2.7 6.2

 Race and Hispanic origin

Black ........................................ 63.8 65.6 66.3 1.8 .7

Men .................................... 71.0 69.0 68.3 -2.0 -.7

Women ............................... 58.0 62.8 64.6 4.8 1.8

Hispanic origin .......................... 67.4 67.9 67.7 .5 -.2

Men .................................... 81.9 79.8 77.9 -2.1 -1.9

Women ............................... 53.2 55.6 57.9 2.4 2.3

Asian and other ........................ 65.0 67.0 66.9 2.0 -.1

Men................................. 74.4 75.5 74.0 1.1 -1.5

Women ............................... 56.5 59.2 60.5 2.7 1.3

White ........................................ 66.2 67.3 67.9 1.1 .6

Men .................................... 76.9 75.6 74.5 -1.3 -1.1

Women ............................... 56.4 59.4 61.5 3.0 2.1

SOURCE: Table 3 in Howard N Fullerton, “Labor force projections to 2008: steady growth and

changing composition,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1999, p. 24.

Characteristic Participation rates Percentage-point change

1988 1998 2008,

projected 1988 to 1998 1998 to 2008
39

Table 1-9. Labor force participation rates of the foreign-born and native-born by selected

characteristics, annual averages, 2000

 Age

Total, 16 years and older .......... 66.7 79.8 54.0 67.2 73.9 61.1

16 to 24 years .................... 60.2 70.6 47.8 66.6 68.4 64.9

25 to 34 years .................... 77.0 92.1 61.4 86.2 93.6 79.2

35 to 44 years .................... 82.1 94.0 69.7 85.3 92.4 78.4

45 to 54 years .................... 80.0 91.0 69.6 82.9 88.3 77.8

55 to 64 years .................... 59.1 73.6 47.3 59.2 66.5 52.4

65 years and older ............. 12.1 18.6 7.4 12.9 17.4 9.6

 Education 1

Less than a high school

 diploma .................................. 59.0 78.0 41.4 37.4 46.7 29.2

High school graduates,

 no college ............................. 66.5 81.4 54.1 64.4 74.3 55.9

Some college, no degree .......... 72.5 81.7 63.9 72.2 79.2 65.9

College graduates ..................... 76.9 85.3 67.4 79.9 84.3 75.2

 Race and ethnicity 2

Non-Hispanic black ................... 75.0 80.6 69.4 64.9 67.6 62.8

Hispanic origin .......................... 69.5 85.4 52.5 67.7 74.8 61.4

Non-Hispanic Asian .................. 67.3 77.8 58.2 66.1 70.0 62.3

Non-Hispanic white ................... 59.1 71.0 48.0 67.6 74.9 60.8

1

 Data by educational attainment are for persons aged 25 years and older.

2 Data for race and ethnicity groups will not sum to totals, because data for the “other races”

group are not presented.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Foreign-born Native-born

Characteristic

Total Men Women Total Men Women
40

Table 1-10. Unemployment rates of the foreign-born and native-born by selected characteristics, annual

averages, 2000

 Age

Total, 16 years and older .............. 4.2 3.8 4.9 4.0 3.9 4.0

16 to 24 years ........................ 7.9 7.4 8.7 9.5 10.0 8.9

25 to 34 years ........................ 3.9 3.1 5.1 3.7 3.5 3.9

35 to 44 years ........................ 3.8 3.2 4.7 2.9 2.7 3.1

45 to 54 years ........................ 3.2 2.9 3.5 2.4 2.4 2.3

55 to 64 years ........................ 3.9 3.8 4.1 2.3 2.3 2.3

65 years and older ................. 4.1 4.7 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.7

 Education 1

Less than a high school diploma .. 5.8 4.6 7.8 6.7 6.0 7.8

High school graduates,

 no college ................................... 3.3 2.9 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.5

Some college, no degree .............. 3.3 3.0 3.7 2.8 2.6 3.0

College graduates ......................... 2.3 2.1 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.7

 Race and ethnicity 2

Non-Hispanic black ....................... 5.4 5.5 5.2 7.9 8.5 7.4

Hispanic origin .............................. 5.1 4.2 6.7 6.4 6.0 6.8

Non-Hispanic Asian ...................... 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.7 4.9 4.5

Non-Hispanic white ....................... 3.2 2.9 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2

1 Data by educational attainment are for persons aged 25 years and older.

2

 Data for race and ethnicity groups will not sum to totals, because data for the “other races” group

are not presented.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Characteristic

Foreign-born Native-born

Total Men Women Total Men Women
41

Table 1-11. Occupational distribution of the foreign-born and the native-born by selected

characteristics, annual averages, 2000

Total (in thousands) ..................... 16,954 10,067 6,887 118,254 62,226 56,028

Percent ........................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Executive, administrative,

 and managerial .................... 9.9 9.8 10.0 15.3 15.8 14.8

Professional specialty ........... 13.5 12.9 14.5 15.9 13.6 18.5

Technical ............................... 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.6

Sales ..................................... 9.8 8.7 11.3 12.4 11.8 13.1

Administrative support .......... 8.9 4.6 15.3 14.5 5.6 24.5

Service .................................. 18.9 13.4 26.9 12.7 9.5 16.4

Protective service ........... .8 1.1 .4 1.9 2.9 .8

Private household ........... 1.8 .1 4.4 .4 – .8

Other ............................... 16.3 12.2 22.2 10.4 6.5 14.8

Precision production, craft,

 and repair ............................ 12.8 19.0 3.6 10.8 18.7 2.0

Operators, fabricators, and

 laborers ............................... 18.9 22.7 13.5 12.8 18.8 6.1

Farming, forestry, and

 fishing ................................. 4.4 6.3 1.6 2.2 3.3 1.1

NOTE: Dash indicates less than 0.05 percent.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Foreign-born Native-born

Characteristic

Total Men Women Total Men Women
42

Table 1-12. Median weekly earnings of foreign-born and native-born full-time1 wage and salary workers2

by selected characteristics, annual averages, 2000

 Age

Total, 16 years and older ............. $447 $477 $407 $591 $676 $500

16 to 24 years...................... 314 320 300 369 387 347

25 to 34 years..................... 433 443 418 574 624 500

35 to 44 years ....................... 499 555 423 652 755 534

45 to 54 years ....................... 516 586 445 690 804 579

55 to 64 years ................... 483 533 415 635 757 514

65 years and older ................ 381 408 344 457 580 385

 Education 3

Less than a high school

 diploma ...................................... 322 355 286 389 464 313

High school graduates,

 no college .................................. 420 468 377 514 607 426

Some college, no degree ............. 524 584 478 604 710 506

College graduates ........................ 852 964 724 902 1,032 764

1 Full-time workers include persons who usually work 35 hours or more a week on their sole, or

principal, job. 2 Wage and salary workers exclude self-employed persons whether or not their businesses are

incorporated. 3

 Data by educational attainment are for people aged 25 years and older.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Foreign-born Native-born Characteristic

Total Men Women Total Men Women
43

Table 1-13. Consumer unit characteristics by race and ethnicity of reference person, 1999

Number of consumer units (in thousands) .... 108,465 95,293 13,172 9,111 99,354

Percent of all consumer units ...................... 100.0 87.9 12.1 8.4 91.6

Income before taxes .................................... $43,951 $45,688 $30,427 $33,803 $44,955

Age of the reference person ........................ 47.9 48.3 44.9 41.2 48.5

 Average number in consumer unit

Persons .................................................. 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.5 2.4

Children under 18 ................................... .7 .6 .9 1.3 .6

Persons 65 and older ............................. .3 .3 .2 .2 .3

Earners ................................................... 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.3

Vehicles .................................................. 1.9 2.0 1.3 1.6 2.0

 Percent distribution

Housing tenure:

Homeowner ............................................. 65 68 47 44 67

With mortgage .................................. 38 39 29 30 39

Without mortgage ............................. 27 28 17 14 28

Renter .................................................... 35 32 53 56 33

Race of reference person:

Black ...................................................... 12 – 100 4 13

White and other ...................................... 88 100 – 96 87

Education:

Elementary (1-8) ..................................... 6 6 8 22 5

High school (9-12) .................................. 39 38 48 45 38

College ................................................... 55 56 44 32 57

Never attended and other ...................... (2

) (2) (2) 1(2)

At least one vehicle owned or leased ........... 87 89 73 82 88

1 Components of income and taxes are derived from “complete income reporters” only.

2

 Indicates less than 0.5 percent.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not applicable.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.

All

consumer

units

Race of reference

person

Hispanic origin of

reference person Item

White and

other Black Hispanic NonHispanic

1
44

Table 1-14. Allocation of average annual expenditures per consumer unit, and aggregate expenditure

shares by race of reference person, 1999

Number of consumer units (in thousands) ........... 95,293 13,172 95,293 13,172

 Percent of all consumer units ........................ 87.9 12.1 87.9 12.1

Total expenditures ................................... $38,323 $27,340 $3.7 trillion $0.4 trillion

Percent ............................................. 100.0 100.0 91.0 9.0

Food .................................................................... 13.4 15.1 89.9 10.0

Food at home ................................................ 7.7 9.7 88.9 11.1

Food away from home ................................... 5.7 5.4 91.4 8.5

Alcoholic beverages ............................................ .9 .6 93.7 6.0

Housing ............................................................... 32.3 35.5 90.2 9.8

Shelter .......................................................... 18.8 20.1 90.5 9.5

Owned dwellings ...................................... 12.5 9.8 92.8 7.2

Rented dwellings ..................................... 5.0 9.8 83.9 16.1

Other lodging ........................................... 1.3 .5 96.4 3.7

Utilities, fuels, and public services ............... 6.2 8.8 87.7 12.3

Household operations .................................... 1.8 1.7 91.7 8.3

Housekeeping supplies ................................. 1.3 1.3 91.0 8.8

Household furnishings and equipment ........... 4.1 3.6 92.0 8.0

Apparel and services ........................................... 4.5 6.9 86.9 13.1

Transportation ...................................................... 19.0 18.7 91.2 8.8

Vehicle purchases (net outlay) ...................... 9.0 8.7 91.3 8.7

Gasoline and motor oil .................................. 2.9 2.8 91.3 8.7

Other vehicle expenses ................................ 6.1 6.1 90.9 9.1

Public transportation ..................................... 1.1 1.1 91.2 8.9

Healthcare .......................................................... 5.4 4.0 93.2 6.8

Health insurance ........................................... 2.5 2.1 92.5 7.4

Medical services ........................................... 1.6 .9 94.8 5.2

Drugs .......................................................... 1.0 .9 92.1 7.7

Medical supplies ............................................ .3 .2 93.5 6.2

Entertainment ...................................................... 5.3 3.4 93.9 6.0

Personal care products and services .................. 1.1 1.5 88.1 11.9

Reading ............................................................... .4 .3 93.9 6.2

Education .......................................................... 1.7 1.5 92.1 7.8

Tobacco products and smoking supplies ............. .8 .8 91.7 8.4

Miscellaneous ...................................................... 2.4 2.2 91.7 8.2

Cash contributions .............................................. 3.3 2.0 94.4 5.6

Personal insurance and pensions ....................... 9.4 7.7 92.6 7.4

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

Aggregate expenditure

shares

Shares of total

expenditures

White and

other

Item

Black White and

other Black
45

Table 1-15. Consumer unit characteristics by ethnicity of reference person, 1994 and 1999

Number of consumer units (in thousands) ........... 94,479 99,354 7,730 9,111

Percent of all consumer units ............................. 92.4 91.6 7.6 8.4

Income before taxes1 .......................................... $37,000 $44,955 $26,750 $33,803

Age of the reference person ............................... 48.2 48.5 41.1 41.2

 Average number in consumer unit

Persons ......................................................... 2.5 2.4 3.4 3.5

Children under 18 .......................................... .7 .6 1.3 1.3

Persons 65 and older .................................... .3 .3 .2 .2

Earners .......................................................... 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6

Vehicles ......................................................... 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.6

 Percent distribution

Housing tenure:

Homeowner .................................................... 65 67 42 44

With mortgage ......................................... 37 39 28 30

Without mortgage .................................... 27 28 14 14

Renter .......................................................... 35 33 58 56

Race of reference person:

Black ............................................................. 12 13 3 4

White and other ............................................. 88 87 97 96

Education:

Elementary (1-8) ............................................ 7 5 25 22

High school (9-12) ......................................... 43 38 45 45

College .......................................................... 49 57 29 32

Never attended and other ............................. 0 (2

)1 1

At least one vehicle owned or leased ........... 86 88 80 82

1 Components of income and taxes are derived from “complete reporters” only.

2

 Indicates less than 0.5 percent.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

Non-Hispanic reference

person

Hispanic reference

person Item

1994 1999 1999 1994
46

Table1-16. Average annual and aggregate expenditure shares by ethnicity of reference person, 1999

Number of consumer units (in thousands) ........... 9,111 99,354 9,111 99,354

Percent of population .............................. 8.4 91.6 – — –—

 Total expenditures .................................. $33,044 $37,356 $0.3 trillion $3.7 trillion

Percent ............................................. 100.0 100.0 7.6 92.4

Food .................................................................... 16.6 13.3 9.4 90.6

Food at home ................................................ 10.8 7.6 10.5 89.5

Food away from home ................................... 5.9 5.7 7.9 92.1

Alcoholic beverages ...................................... .8 .9 7.3 92.7

Housing ............................................................... 33.3 32.5 7.7 92.3

Shelter ........................................................... 20.5 18.8 8.1 91.9

Owned dwellings ...................................... 9.6 12.4 5.9 94.1

Rented dwellings ..................................... 10.4 5.1 14.2 85.8

Other lodging ........................................... .5 1.3 3.1 96.9

Utilities, fuels, and public services ............... 6.4 6.4 7.5 92.5

Household operations .................................... 1.4 1.8 5.9 94.1

Housekeeping supplies ................................. 1.3 1.3 7.7 92.3

Household furnishings and equipment ........... 3.6 4.1 6.7 93.3

Apparel and services ........................................... 6.3 4.6 10.2 89.8

Transportation ...................................................... 20.6 18.8 8.2 91.8

Vehicle purchases (net outlay) ...................... 10.2 8.8 8.5 91.5

Gasoline and motor oil .................................. 3.4 2.8 8.9 91.1

Other vehicle expenses ................................ 6.0 6.1 7.4 92.6

Public transportation ..................................... 1.0 1.1 7.3 92.7

Healthcare .......................................................... 3.4 5.4 4.8 95.2

Health insurance ........................................... 1.6 2.6 4.9 95.1

Medical services ........................................... .9 1.6 4.7 95.3

Drugs .......................................................... .6 1.0 4.9 95.1

Medical supplies ............................................ .2 .3 4.8 95.2

Entertainment ...................................................... 3.8 5.2 5.6 94.4

Personal care products and services .................. 1.2 1.1 8.5 91.5

Reading .......................................................... .2 .4 3.7 96.3

Education .......................................................... 1.1 1.8 4.9 95.1

Tobacco products and smoking supplies ............. .5 .8 4.8 95.2

Miscellaneous ...................................................... 1.9 2.4 6.2 93.8

Cash contributions .............................................. 2.1 3.3 4.8 95.2

Personal insurance and pensions ....................... 8.2 9.4 6.6 93.4

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

Expenditure shares Aggregate shares

Hispanic

reference

person

Non-Hispanic

reference

person

Item Non-Hispanic

reference

person

Hispanic

reference

person
47

Table 1-17. Aggregate expenditure shares for Hispanics, 1994 and 1999

Number of consumer units (in thousands) ................................................ 7,730 9,111

Percent of all consumer units .................................................................. 7.6 8.4

Average annual expenditures per consumer unit ..................................... $26,433 $33,044

 Percent of all consumer expenditures

Total expenditures ........................................................................ 6.3 7.6

Food ......................................................................................................... 7.7 9.4

Food at home ..................................................................................... 9.3 10.5

Food away from home ........................................................................ 5.2 7.9

Alcoholic beverages ................................................................................. 5.7 7.3

Housing ............................................................................................... 6.7 7.7

Shelter ............................................................................................... 7.1 8.1

Owned dwellings ........................................................................... 5.0 5.9

Rented dwellings .......................................................................... 12.1 14.2

Other lodging ................................................................................ 2.5 3.1

Utilities, fuels, and public services .................................................... 6.8 7.5

Household operations ......................................................................... 5.5 5.9

Housekeeping supplies ...................................................................... 6.9 7.7

Household furnishings and equipment ................................................ 5.3 6.7

Apparel and services ................................................................................ 8.7 10.2

Transportation ........................................................................................... 6.1 8.2

Vehicle purchases (net outlay) ........................................................... 6.0 8.5

Gasoline and motor oil ....................................................................... 6.9 8.9

Other vehicle expenses ..................................................................... 5.7 7.4

Public transportation .......................................................................... 5.9 7.3

Healthcare ............................................................................................... 4.6 4.8

Health insurance ................................................................................ 4.4 4.9

Medical services ................................................................................ 5.3 4.7

Drugs .................................................................................................. 3.9 4.9

Medical supplies ................................................................................. 3.6 4.8

Entertainment ........................................................................................... 4.5 5.6

Personal care products and services ....................................................... 8.6 8.5

Reading .................................................................................................... 3.5 3.7

Education ................................................................................................. 5.5 4.9

Tobacco products and smoking supplies .................................................. 4.0 4.8

Miscellaneous ........................................................................................... 5.8 6.2

Cash contributions ................................................................................... 3.6 4.8

Personal insurance and pensions ............................................................ 5.2 6.6

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Surveys.

Item 1994 1999
48

Table 1-18. Selected characteristics of the resident population, 1750 to 1999

(In thousands)

Estimated: 2

1750 .......................... – – 1,040 220 – – – –

1754 .......................... – – 1,165 260 – – – –

1760 .......................... – – 1,385 310 – – – –

1770 .......................... – – 1,850 462 – – – –

1780 .......................... – – 2,383 562 – – – –

Decennial Census Data: .

17903 ......................... – – 3,172 757 – – – –

18003 ......................... – – 4,306 1,002 – – – –

18104 ......................... – – 5,862 1,191 – – – –

18204 ......................... – – 7,867 1,772 – – – –

18304 ......................... – – 10,537 2,329 – – – –

18404 ......................... – – 14,196 2,874 – – – –

18503 ......................... – – 19,553 3,639 – – – –

18605 ......................... – – 26,923 4,442 – – – –

18705 ......................... – – 33,589 4,880 – – – –

18805 ......................... – – 43,403 6,581 – – – –

18905 ......................... – – 54,984 7,470 – – – –

19003 ......................... 38,816 37,178 66,809 8,834 351 – – –

19103 ......................... 47,332 44,640 81,732 9,828 413 – – –

19203 ......................... 53,900 51,810 94,821 10,463 427 – – –

19303 ......................... 62,137 60,638 110,287 11,891 597 – – –

19403 ......................... 66,062 65,608 118,215 12,866 589 – – –

19503 ......................... 74,833 75,864 134,942 15,042 713 – – –

19503 ......................... 75,187 76,139 135,150 15,045 1,131 – – –

1960 .......................... 88,331 90,992 158,832 18,872 1,620 – – –

19706 ......................... 98,926 104,309 178,098 22,581 2,557 – – –

19807, 8 ....................... 110,053 116,493 194,713 26,683 5,150 1,420 3,729 14,609

19907, 9 ....................... 121,284 127,507 208,741 30,517 9,534 2,067 7,467 22,379

Date

Sex Race

Hispanic

Asian, origin1

Pacific

Islander

Men

Other

Women White Black Total

American

Indian,

Eskimo,

Aleut
49

Current Population

 Survey data:

1991 (July 1)10 ........... 122,956 129,197 210,975 31,137 10,041 2,112 7,929 23,391

1992 (July 1)10 ........... 124,424 130,606 212,874 31,683 10,473 2,149 8,324 24,283

1993 (July 1)10 ........... 125,788 131,995 214,691 32,195 10,897 2,187 8,710 25,222

1994 (July 1)10 ........... 127,049 133,278 216,379 32,672 11,276 2,222 9,054 26,160

1995 (July 1)10 ........... 128,294 134,510 218,023 33,116 11,664 2,256 9,408 27,107

1996 (July 1)10 ........... 129,504 135,724 219,636 33,537 12,055 2,290 9,765 28,099

1997 (July 1)10 ........... 130,783 137,001 221,333 33,989 12,461 2,326 10,135 29,182

1998 (July 1)10 ........... 132,030 138,218 222,980 34,427 12,840 2,361 10,479 30,252

1999 (July 1)10 ........... 133,277 139,414 224,611 34,862 13,217 2,397 10,820 31,337

1

 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

2

 Data are from Wright, Carroll D., The History and Growth of the United States Census (New York,

Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1966). 3

 Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

4

 Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition, Part 2

(Census Bureau, 1975). 5 See Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990,” Population Division Working Paper No. 29 (Census Bureau, February

1999). 6

 The revised 1970 resident population count is 203,302,031, which incorporates changes due to errors

found after tabulations were completed. The race and sex data shown here reflect the official 1970 census

count. 7

 The race data shown have been modified to be consistent with the guidelines in Federal Statistical

Directive No. 15 issued by the Office of Management and Budget. Figures are not comparable with the 1990

census race categories. 8 Total population count has been revised since the 1980 census publications. Numbers by age, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex have not been corrected. 9 The April 1, 1990, census count (248,765,170) includes count resolution corrections processed

through August 1997 and does not include adjustments for census coverage errors except for adjustments

estimated for the 1995 Census Test in Oakland, CA; Paterson, NJ; and six Louisiana parishes. These

adjustments amounted to a total of 55,297 persons. 10 Estimated.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000: The National Data Book (Census Bureau,

2000).

Date

Sex Race

Hispanic

Asian, origin1

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian,

Eskimo,

Men Aleut

Other

Women White Black Total

Table 1-18. Selected characteristics of the resident population, 1750 to 1999—Continued

(In thousands)
50

Baseler, Marilyn C., “Asylum for Mankind”

America, 1607-1800 (Ithaca, NY, Cornell

University Press, 1998).

Chan, Sucheng, Asian Americans: An Interpretive History (Boston, Twayne, 1991).

Epstein, Abraham, “The Negro Migrant in

Pittsburgh,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1918, pp. 155-57.

Gibson, Campbell J. and Emily Lennon, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreignborn Population of the United States: 1850-

1990,” Population Division Working Paper No. 29 (U.S. Census Bureau, February

1999), http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/

twps0029.html (visited Nov. 22, 2000).

Goldberg, Joseph P. and William T. Moye, The

First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985).

Grossman, Jonathan, “Black Studies in the

Department of Labor, 1897-1907,”

Monthly Labor Review, June 1974, pp. 17-

27.

Gyory, Andrew, Closing the Gate (Chapel Hill,

The University of North Carolina Press,

1998).

Hatton, Timothy J. and Jeffrey G. Williamson,

The Age of Mass Migration (New York,

Oxford University Press, 1998).

“Industrial Relations and Labor Conditions:

Negro Labor During and After the War,”

Monthly Labor Review, April 1921, pp.

137-42.

“Japanese Emigration,” Monthly Review, June

1918, p. 231.

Japikse, Catherine, “Chronicle: The Irish Potato Famine,” EPA Journal, fall 1994, on

the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

epajrnal/fall94/19.txt.html

Jenks, Jeremiah W., W. Jett Lauck, and Rufus

D. Smith, The Immigration Problem (New

York, Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1922).

“Labor Conditions: Results of Admission of

Mexican Laborers, Under Departmental

Orders, for Employment in Agricultural

Pursuits,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1920, pp. 221-23.

“Labor Organizations: Negro Labor in the

Stove Industry,” Monthly Labor Review,

September 1920, pp. 183-84.

Library of Congress, “American Memory,” Historical Overview of U.S. Immigration Policy,

1921-1964, http://www.cms.ccsd.k12.co.us/

ss/SONY/Immbeta2/21-1964.htm (visited

Nov. 27, 2000)

McKinnon, Jesse and Karen Humes, “The

Black Population in the United States”

(U.S. Census Bureau, September 2000),

http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/

p20-530.pdf (visited Jan. 4, 2001).

Norwood, Janet L. and Deborah P. Klein, “Developing Statistics to Meet Society’s

Needs,” Monthly Labor Review, October

1989, pp. 14-19.

Perlman, Joel, “‘Race or People:’ Federal Race

Classifications for Europeans in America,

1898-1913,” Working Paper 320 (The

Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard

College, 2001).

Ruggles, Stephen, Matthew Sobek, and others,

“1960 Census: Instructions to Respondents,” Integrated Public Use Microdata

Series: Version 2.0 (Minneapolis, Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota, 1997), http://www.ipums.umn.edu/

~pipums/voliii/inst1960.html (visited

Jan. 3, 2001).

Rutkoff, Peter and Will Scott, Fly Away: The Great

Migration, http://www.northbysouth.org/

1999/ (visited Nov. 27, 2000).

Schmidley, A. Dianne and Campbell Gibson,

“Profile of the Foreign-Born Population

in the United States: 1997,” Current Population Reports, Series P23-195 (Census

Bureau, 1999).

Schmidley, A. Dianne and J. Gregory Robinson,

How Well Does the Current Population

Survey Measure the Foreign Born Population in the United States? (Census Bureau,

April 1998), http://www.census.gov/

population/www/documentation/

twps0022/twps0022.html (visited Nov.

22, 2000).

Thomas, Hugh, The Slave Trade (New York,

Simon and Schuster, 1997).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Section 1. Population,”

1996 Statistical Abstract of the United

States,. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), http://www.census.gov/

prod/2/gen/96statab/96statab.html (visited

Nov. 22, 2000).

U.S. Department of Labor, “Start-up of the

Department and World War I, 1913-1921,”

References
51

History of DOL, 1913-1988 (Washington,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988),

http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/history/dolchp01.htm (visited

Nov. 28, 2000).

Wright, Carroll D., The History and Growth of

the United States Census (Washington,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900).

Wynn, Neil A., “Black Americans in the Twentieth Century,” in Iwan W. Morgan and

Neil A. Wynn, eds., America’s Century (New

York, Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc.,

1993), pp. 247-77.

Wynn Neil A., “The Forties: Wartime and

Postwar America, 1940-1948,” In Iwan W.

Morgan and Neil A. Wynn, eds., America’s

Century (New York, Holmes and Meier

Publishers, Inc., 1993), pp. 110-32.
52

1

 See Baseler, 1998, p. 34.

2

 See Hatton and Williamson, 1998, p.7.

3

 See Thomas, 1997, p. 552.

4

 See Thomas, p. 568.

5

 See Jenks, Lauck, and Smith, 1922, p.

368.6

 See Hatton and Williamson, 1998, p. 75.

7

 Immigration and Naturalization Service,

“Immigrants, Fiscal Year 1998,” Statistical

Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1998 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), table 2. 8

 See Japiske, 1994.

9

 See Hatton and Williamson, 1998, p.75.

10 See Gyory, 1998, p. 31.

11 Gyory, p.40.

12 Daniels, Roger, Asian America: Chinese

and Japanese in the United States since 1850

(Seattle, University of Washington Press,

1988), p. 52. 13 See Gyory, p. 216.

14 See Chan, 2000.

15 See Hatton and Williamson, 1998, p.124.

16 See Hatton and Williamson, p. 149.

17 See Schmidley and Gibson, 1999, p.9.

18 See Schmidley and Gibson, 1999, p. 9.

19 See Wynn, “Black Americans,” 1993, p.

251.20 See Rutkoff and Scott, 2000.

21 See Wynn, “Black Americans,” 1993, p.

262.22 See McKinnon and Humes, 2000, p. 1.

23 See Wright, 1900, p. 13.

24 “All other persons” referred to slaves,

who were assigned a count equal to three-fifths

of free persons. 25 See Perlman, 2001.

26 See Norwood and Klein, 1989, p. 16.

27 The CPS is a monthly survey of households conducted for BLS by the Census Bureau

through a scientifically selected sample designed to represent the civilian noninstitutional population. Respondents are interviewed

to obtain information about the employment

status of each member of the household 16

years of age and older. The inquiry relates to

activity or status during the calendar week,

Sunday through Saturday, which includes the

12th day of the month. This is known as the

“reference week.” Actual field interviewing is

conducted in the following week, referred to as

the “survey week.”

Each month about 50,000 occupied units

are eligible for interview. Some 3,200 of these

households are contacted but interviews are

not obtained because the occupants are not at

home after repeated calls or are unavailable for

other reasons. This represents a noninterview

rate for the survey that ranges between 6 and 7

percent. In addition to the 50,000 occupied

units, there are 9,000 sample units in an average month, which are visited but found to be

vacant or otherwise not eligible for enumeration. Part of the sample is changed each month.

The rotation plan, as explained later, provides

for three-fourths of the sample to be common

from one month to the next, and one-half to be

common with the same month a year earlier. 28 For a brief history of the Current Population Survey, see “Design and Methodology,

Current Population Survey,” Technical Paper

63 (Census Bureau, March 2000), pp. 2-1

through 2-5. 29 “AAA recommends ‘race’ be scrapped;

suggests new government categories,” Press

Release/OMB 15 (American Anthropological

Association, Sept. 8, 1997). 30 Ibid.

31 See Enumerator’s Reference Manual, Current Population Survey and Housing Vacancy

Survey (Census Bureau, January 1961), p. D50. 32 See Interviewer’s Reference manual, Current Population Survey (Census Bureau, December 1971 (rev. July 1985)), pp. D3-44–

D3-45. 33 Ibid., p. D3-48.

34 See Current Population Survey Interviewing Manual (Census Bureau, January

1999), pp. C3-23–C3-28. 35 See “Labor Conditions,” 1920, p. 225.

36 Annual Report on the Labor Force: 1949,

Current Population Reports, Series P-50, No.

19 (Census Bureau, Mar. 2, 1951), table 18,

p. 23. 37 Annual Report on the Labor Force: 1955,

Current Population Reports, Series P-50, No.

67 (Census Bureau, March 1956), table 4, p. 20. 38 “Nonwhite” as a distinct racial category

has not been in use for a number of years.

Hence, data by race that can be found in publications like the Handbook of Labor Statistics

(as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

or in Labor Force Statistics from the Current

Population Survey, are only for whites. But,

of course, the nonwhite estimates can be deEndnotes
53

rived by subtraction. 39 See Gloria P. Green, Khoan tan Dinh,

John A. Priebe, and Ronald A. Tucker, “Revisions in the Current Population Survey Beginning in January 1983,” Employment and Earnings, February 1983, p. 14.

40 See Employment and Earnings, April

1974, p. 137. “The term ‘Negro’ is used in

tables when the relevant data provided is for

Negroes exclusively.” 41 See Employment and Earnings, April

1974, table A-60, p. 63. 42 See “The Employment Situation: January 1982,” USDL 82-40 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Feb. 5, 1982). 43 See Employment and Earnings, February 1983, table 3, p. 20. 44 Prior to 1972, data were for “black and

other,” or equivalently, “nonwhites.” This

change made very little difference in terms of

labor force data at the time since more than

90 percent of nonwhites were blacks. 45 See Howard N Fullerton, Jr., “Labor force

projections to 2008: steady growth and changing composition,” Monthly Labor Review,

November 1999, pp. 19-32. 46 The foreign-born population, although

primarily composed of legally admitted immigrants, includes refugees, temporary residents

such as students and temporary workers, and

undocumented immigrants. “Natives” are persons born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or

an outlying area of the United States such as

Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and persons

who were born in a foreign country but who

had at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.

All others are foreign-born. 47 Income data are described for complete

reporters only. In general, a consumer unit

that provides values for at least one of the

major sources of its income, such as wages

and salaries, self-employment, and Social Security income is classified as a “complete income reporter.” However, even complete

income reporters may not provide a complete accounting of all sources of income. 48 Note that total shelter, as defined in tables

14 and 15, omits utilities, but includes other

lodging (such as for vacation stays or room at

school). Because blacks are noticeably underrepresented in other lodging (4 percent), this

diminishes the overall shelter share. However,

other lodging is a small component of shelter

for both black and nonblack consumers.