munities, developing business ties among ex-
tended families and friends and systems of mu-
tual support and financial assistance. Today, of
the major Hispanic groups, the occupational dis-
tribution for Cubans most closely approximates
that for non-Hispanics, although there are still
noticeable differences, as will become clear in
later sections of this article.

Central and South Americans. With origins in
15 different countries covering a vast geographi-
cal area, Central and South Americans make up a
very heterogeneous group. This is also a group
with a very high proportion of recent immigrants,
most having arrived over the past decade. Central
America has been especially affected by political
and economic problems over that period. As thou-
sands escaped wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and
Guatemala in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Central
American communities grew rapidly in many
parts of the United States.

Like Central Americans, South Americans have
only recently begun to arrive in large numbers. The
biggest group has come from Colombia, which
accounts for more than 1 of every 4 South Ameri-
cans who legally immigrated during the 1980's."
Some of the earliest Colombian migrants—dating
back to the 1960’s—were fleeing political vio-
lence. Falling standards of living for persons in the
middle class prompted many to emigrate in the
1970’s. Colombian immigrants were dispropor-
tionately white-collar workers back home, with
middle-class backgrounds and relatively high lev-
els of education. Economic and political problems
have also prompted considerable emigration from
Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, and Chile.

The Central and South American labor force is
about equally distributed across our northern,
southern, and western regions. A disproportionate
share of both Central and South Americans live in
the Washington, pc, metropolitan area.

Other Hispanics. This group is made up of Hispan-
ics who prefer to identify themselves according to a
broad rubric, such as Latino or Hispanic, as well as
persons from the Dominican Republic and Spain.
Except for Dominicans, most in this category were
bom in the United States and are fluent in English.
The Dominican Republic has accounted for an ex-
traordinarily large number of immigrants over the
past decade (almost 270,000).'*

Age and education profiles

Despite many differences, there are two important
socio-demographic characteristics which several
Hispanic groups share. Compared to the makeup
of the total U.S. working-age population (16 years
and older), Hispanics are generally younger and
also much less likely to have completed a high
school education or better.

Mexicans, Central and South Americans, and
Puerto Ricans, who together make up almost 9 of
10 Hispanics in the United States, are the youngest
of the Hispanic groups. As the tabulation below
shows, the median age for the working-age popu-
lation 16 years and older was the lowest for Mexi-
cans—approximately 33 years in 1992, nearly 8
years younger than that for non-Hispanics.

Median age
Alll Hispanics . 347
Mexicans . 33.4
Puerto Ricans 36.0
46.5
Central and South Americans 34.5
Other Hispanics ............ 384
Non-Hispanics ...........5+ 4Ll

In contrast, the median age for Other Hispanics
(38 years) was most like that for non-Hispanics.
Cubans had an exceptionally high median age—
47 years—mostly because the largest share of the
immigrants arrived many years ago and are well
into their adult years. Also, the recent restrictions
on immigration have severely limited the inflow of
younger persons from the island.

Hispanics have, on average, a relatively low
level of educational attainment. There are many
reasons for this. Adult immigrants have tended to
be poorly educated; many arrived with less than an
eighth grade education. For some, schooling was
interrupted by war or the need to work. In addition,
many of the Hispanic youths fail to complete high
school in the United States. In 1992, 39 percent of
Hispanics 20 to 24 years of age were notenrolled in
school and had not completed high school—a rate
almost 4 times that for non-Hispanics.

While 4 of 5 non-Hispanics 25 years and older
had completed at least high school, this was true
for a little more than 2 of 5 Mexicans. The propor-
tion for each of the other major groups—Puerto
Ricans, Cubans, and Central and South Ameri-
cans—was approximately 3 of 5. With the excep-
tion of Cubans, all were markedly less likely than
non-Hispanics to complete college. The following
tabulation shows the percentage of the population
25 years of age and older in 1992 by educational
attainment:

Had at least a College

high school diploma graduates
All Hispanics 52.5 94
Mexicans . : 45.6 6.1
Puerto Ricans ... 59.0 9.0
Cubans .... : 61.7 19.2

Central and South

Americans ..... 62.7 15.5
Other Hispanics . . 68.2 14.6
Non-Hispanics..... 82.0 22.6

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 7


Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

Table 6. _ Employment distribution and median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary Hispanic and non-
Hispanic workers by occupation, sex, and origin, 1992 annual averages
Hispanic origin
Sex, occupation, Central Non-
Hispanic
and earnings Total Mexican |  Fuerto Cuban | and South nepaniec spat
‘American
Occupation
Men, 16 years and older... : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Managerial and protessional specialty ...... 11.5 89 149 23.6 14.0 18.3 274
Technical, sales, and administrative support . 153 13.2 19.8 22.4 159 23.3 213
Service occupations .....-- oe... 168 15.6 214 10.2 216 17.2 96
Precision production, craft, and repair... .. 20.2 20.6 185 214 19.3 19.7 18.7
Operators, fabricators, and laborers... .... 275 29.8 23.2 19.5, 26.1 19.2 192
Farming, forestry, and fishing.........0... 87 11.9 24 34 32 24 42
Women, 16 years and older............ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Managerial and professional specialty .... 163 14.0 21.8 26.4 13.8 24.1 28.2
Technical, sales, and administrative suppor 39.0 39.5 45.2 45.5 30.1 40.4 44.0
Service occupations... 2... 25.2 246 185 14.8 36.6 23.0 173
Precision production, craft, and repair 32 36 24 25 27 26 20
Operators, fabricators, and laborers... . 14.6 15.7 124 106 16.4 93 74
Farming, forestry, and fishing . .. : 17 27 0 3 4 6 1.0
Median weekly earnings
Men, 16 years and older $345 $325 $421 $441 $352 $451 $516
Women, 16 years and older... 299 285 353 363 281 350 393

The high level of recent Hispanic immigration
has also tended to hold down the proportion em-
ployed in managerial and professional occupa-
tions. Immigrants born in Latin America have
been generally less likely than native-bom His-
panics to be employed in managerial and profes-
sional positions.'? This may be, in part, because
recent immigrants have tended to be young, to be
less fluent in English than other workers, and to
lack professional and business contacts.

Whereas Hispanic men and women were
markedly underrepresented in management and
professional positions, both were overrepresented
in the lower paying occupations. Hispanic men
were highly concentrated in operator, fabricator,
and laborer positions—lower paid factory, con-
struction, and other blue-collar work. In contrast,
non-Hispanic men were much more likely to be
working in better paying jobs—managerial and
professional and technical, sales, and administra-
tive support. Partly because of their concentration
in lower paid occupations, median weekly earn-
ings for Hispanic men who worked full time were
approximately one-third lower than those for
non-Hispanics. (See table 5.)

As table 6 shows, there were noteworthy varia-
tions in occupational mix for men by country of
origin. Puerto Ricans, Central and South Ameri-
cans, and especially Mexicans were the least
likely to be employed as managers and profession-
als. In contrast, the occupational mixes for Cubans
and non-Hispanics were rather similar.

12 Monthly Labor Review August 1993

Although much lower than those for non-His-
panics, at more than $400, median weekly earn-
ings were relatively high for Cuban, Puerto Rican,
and Other Hispanic men who were employed full
time. This finding for Puerto Rican workers may
be attributable, in part, to their concentration in
Northeastem cities, which tend to have relatively
higher wages and a high cost of living.

The earnings of Hispanic women at each occu-
pational category were closer to those of non-His-
panics than was the case for men, as the final col-
umn of table 5 shows. For example, the median
weekly earings for Hispanic women employed
as managers and professionals were 89 percent
those of their non-Hispanic peers. The gap among
men in the same occupational category was some-
what larger. Nevertheless, Hispanic women were
also overrepresented in the poorly paid catego-
ries—particularly in the service and operator, fab-
ricator, and laborer positions.

As with other labor market indicators, the oc-
cupational distribution of Hispanic women varied
by area of origin. (See table 6.) Cubans, Puerto
Ricans, and Other Hispanics had the highest pro-
portions employed in the managerial and profes-
sional category, though all were below that for
non-Hispanics. The median weekly earnings for
women who worked full time tended to reflect
their occupational distributions: Cubans, Puerto
Ricans, and Other Hispanics had the highest ean-
ings, while Mexicans and Central and South
Americans tended to earn considerably less.



icipation rates of Hispanics 16 years and older by sex, 1992 annual averages

Percent Percent
100 100
i Women Men J 90
a = 80
me 4 70
oor 70
sob + 50
aor 40
sor 43%
207 42
10 410
0 _ 0
Mexican Puerto Cuban Central Other = Non- Mexican Puerto Cuban Central Other = Non-
Rican and Hispanic Hispanic Rican and Hispanic Hispanic
South South
American American

fected; their jobless rate rose by 7 points to 15.7
percent in the first quarter of 1993, the highest
among the Hispanic ethnic groups. Puerto Ricans
have been at an unusually severe disadvantage
during the 1990-91 recession because of their
concentration in the Northeast, particularly in
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, three
States which, over the last 3 years, suffered some
of the biggest employment declines in the Nation.

Labor force participation rates

At 66.6 percent in 1992, the overall proportion of
Hispanics who were in the labor force was ap-
proximately the same as that for non-Hispanics
(66.3 percent). This apparent parity, however,
masks substantial differences by sex, ethnicity,
age, and education.

Sex. Differences in labor force participation be-
tween Hispanic and non-Hispanic women tended
to offset those between Hispanic and non-His-
panic men. The proportion of Hispanic women in
the labor force—at 52.8 percent—was approxi-
mately 5 percentage points below that for other
women, while the participation rate for Hispanic
men—at 80.5 percent—was about 5 points higher
than that for their non-Hispanic counterparts.

Data for 1992 show that there are some differ-
ences in the extent to which the major Hispanic
groups participated in the labor force. (See chart 3
and table 1.) As one would expect, the overall rate
of participation for both Hispanic women and men
is greatly influenced by the situation of Mexicans,
the largest component group.

With but one exception, Hispanic women were
less likely to be in the work force than non-His-
panic women. The exception was Central and
South American women, who were about as likely
to participate as non-Hispanic women. With a rate
of 47.1 percent, Puerto Rican women had the low-
est proportion in the labor force.

Among men, the most likely to be in the work
force were the Central and South Americans and
the Mexicans. Cuban and other Hispanic men par-
ticipated at rates similar to the average for
non-Hispanics, while the participation rate for
Puerto Ricans was 5 points below that for non-
Hispanic men. The proportions of Puerto Rican
men and women in the labor foree—once among
the highest of the Hispanic ethnic groups—
dropped precipitously in the 1960°s. The down-
ward trend coincided with the sharp contraction of
manufacturing industries in the Eastern Seaboard
cities where Puerto Ricans have been dispropor-
tionately employed.'*

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 9



Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

Unemployment differentials

Hispanics tend to experience greater labor market
problems than non-Hispanics. In 1992, for ex-
ample, an average of 11.5 percent of the Hispanic
labor force was unemployed, approximately 1-1/2
times the proportion for non-Hispanics. This dif-
ferential has held remarkably constant throughout
the past decade. There are certainly many reasons
for this, reflecting such things as a low average
level of educational attainment, a high proportion
of youth in the Hispanic labor force, language
problems, discrimination, and the concentration of
Hispanic employment in occupations which tend
to have high unemployment rates.

Average unemployment rates for all of the His-
panic ethnic groups in 1992 were higher than that
for non-Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)° At 14.0

percent, the incidence of joblessness among
Puerto Ricans was the highest. As table 2 shows,
Puerto Rican youth had a particularly high rate—
more than 1 of 5 was unemployed.

With the onset of the recession in mid-1990,
the unemployment rate for Hispanics rose from
8.0 percent in the third quarter of 1990 (the onset
of the recession) to 12.2 in the first quarter of
1993, This was somewhat sharper than the rise for
non-Hispanics (from 5.2 to 7.2 percent over the
same time period).

The impact of the recent cyclical downturn on
the major Hispanic groups varied somewhat. For
example, the unemployment rate for Mexicans
(12.0 percent in the first quarter of 1993) was up
by 4 percentage points over the period, while the
rate for Cubans (8.1 percent) rose by only 0.2
point. Puerto Ricans continued to be the most af-

Table 1.

(Numbers in thousands]

Employment status of the Hispanic and non-Hispanic civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and
older by sex, 1992 annual averages

Hispanic origin
Non-
Employment status and sex Central
Puert Other
Total Mexican Riese Cuban | and South | juspanic | PE
American
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional population 15,244 9,374 1,625 866 2,245 4,134 176,332
Civilian labor force 10,147 6,338 932 528 1,604 744 116,890
Percent of popu 666 67.6 573 61.0 5 65.6 66.3
Employment . . . 8,981 5,595 801 487 1,421 677 108,647
Employment, Population 1 ratio 58.9 597 49.3 56.2 63.3 59.7 616
Unemployment 1,166 743 130 42 184 67 8,243
Unemployment rate... 115 17 14.0 73 114 90 7A
Men
Civilian noninstitutional population. 7,569 4,808 728 406 1,093 534 83,971
Givilian labor force . 6,093 3,946 509 296 935 406 63,119
Percent of population . 80.5 82.1 70.0 73.0 85.6 76.0 752
Employment . . . 5,391 3,486 431 276 829 369 58,424
Employment-population ratio - 71.2 72.5 59.2 67.9 75.8 69.2 69.6
Unemployment............ 702 460 78 Bl 106 37 4,695
Unemployment rate 118 14.7 15.4 7.0 11.4 90 74
Women
Civilian noninstitutional population ..... 7,874 4,566 897 460 4,152 600 92,361
Civilian labor force . ... 4,053 2,392 422 232 669 338 53,770
Percent of population 52.8 52.4 47.1 50.5 58.1 56.4 58.2
Employment a 3.589 2,109 370 at 592 308 50,222
Employment, opuaton ratio . 46.8 46.2 413 45.9 51.4 513 544
Unemployment ....... 464 283 52 24 7 30 3,548
Unemployment rate. we 18 11.8 123 4 115 9.0 66
|
Table 2. Unemployment rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanics by age, 1992 annual averages
Hispanic origin
Non-
Age Central
Total Mexican | Muerto Cuban | and South | cther | Hispanic
‘American Spanic
Total, 16 years and older 11.5 117 14.0 79 11.4 9.0 7A
16 to 24 years . 178 17.7 23.1 11.5 177 15.0 13.9
25 to 54 years - 99 10.0 126 78 96 a1 6.0
55 years and older. 87 83 58 62 18.4 68 45

8 Monthly Labor Review

August 1993


Table 5. Total employment and median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary
Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers by occupation and sex, 1992 annual
averages

Hispanic Non-Hispanic Ratio of
‘Occupation Hispanic to
and sex Employed beer Employed Medien non-Hispanic
wee! weekly +
(percent) earnings (percent) | samings | °erninas
Total, 16 years and older ............. 100.0 $331 100.0 $457 72.4

Managerial and professional specialty ...... 135 574 276 662 86.7

Technical, sles, and administrative cupport 24.8 358 31.8 ait 87.4

Service occupations ...... foes 202 249 13.4 286 87.1

Precision production, craft, and repair... 13.4 384 11.0 502 76.5

Operators, fabricators, and laborers... .. 223 286 13.7 366 78.1

Farming, forestry, and fishing ....... . 59 222 27 279 796

Men, 16 years and older .........--..5 100.0 345 100.0 516 66.9

Managerial and professional specialty ...... 15 640 274 799 80.1

Technical, sales, and administrative support 15.3 411 213 531 774

Service occupations ....... 16.8 270 96 345 783

Precision production, craft, and repair... 20.2 405 18.7 510 79.4

Operators, fabricators, and laborers... . 275 320 192 407 78.6

Farming, forestry, and fishing ....... te 87 231 42 285 att

‘Women, 16 years and older... .. 100.0 299 100.0 393 76.1

Managerial and professional specialty ...... 16.3 503 28.2 564 99.2

Technical, sates, and administrative Support 39.0 336 44.0 364 92.3

Service occupations ..... . : 25.2 219 173 249 88.0

Precision production, craft, and repai 32 282 20 348 81.0

Operators, fabricators, and laborers... . 146 232 74 266 att

Farming, forestry, and fishing.......... 17 196 1.0 231 84.8

however, those without a high school diploma Employment and earnings

participated at a higher rate than that of their non-
Hispanic counterparts. (See table 4.)

At least 9 of 10 Mexican and Central and
South American men participated in the Jabor
force, regardless of educational attainment. The
high participation rates for these groups may be
partly attributable to the large numbers of recent
immigrants among them. As Frank Bean and
Marta Tienda observed, many moved here with
the intention of improving their employment
situation, which, of course, meant they had to
participate in the labor force.'’ Some, like those
Central Americans who fled economies wrecked
by war, arrived with only meager savings and
thus lacked the resources to be out of the labor
force even for a short time.

Table 4 also shows that the markedly low av-
erage participation rate for Puerto Rican men 25
to 54 years of age is in large measure reflective of
those who had not completed high school. In fact,
the rates for Puerto Rican men with higher levels
of educational attainment were rather similar to
those of their Hispanic peers. The work of Gre-
gory DeFreitas and others suggests that a sharp
contraction in the number of entry-level jobs in
New York and other Northeastem cities has exac-
erbated the labor market problems of Puerto
Ricans with low levels of schooling."*

In 1992, there were almost 9 million employed
Hispanic Americans in the United States, making
up 7.6 percent of alf workers. With close to 60 per-
cent of their working-age population employed,
Hispanics were about as likely to have a job as
were non-Hispanics. Hispanic women, however,
were less likely to be employed than non-Hispanic
women, The proportions employed differed by
age and educational attainment in ways similar to
those for participation rates.

As is evident from table 5, there were substan-
tial differences in the occupational distributions
for Hispanic and non-Hispanic workers in 1992.
The most notable is that Hispanics were much less
likely than non-Hispanics to be managers and pro-
fessionals. While approximately 28 percent of
non-Hispanics were employed in this category,
this was true for approximately 14 percent of His-
panics. Two factors behind this disparity are the
younger age distributions of Hispanics and their
lower average level of educational attainment. For
example, the disparity in managerial and profes-
sional employment is reduced somewhat among
college graduates who were 25 to 44 years of age.
For this narrowly defined subset, 65 percent of
non-Hispanics were employed as managers and
professionals, versus 60 percent of Hispanics.

Monthly Labor Review August 1993

1)


Peter Cattan

Peter Cattan is an
economist in the Office

of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The diversity of Hispanics
in the U.S. work force

Hispanics have immigrated

from different countries at different times,

for different reasons, and have settled

in various parts of the United States;
this diversity is reflected
in their labor force characteristics

the fastest growing worker groups in the

United States. Their number—10.1 million
in 1992—has increased 65 percent since 1980, a
rate of growth 4 times that for the non-Hispanic
work force. A heterogeneous population, Hispan-
ics represent many nationalities and ethnicities, in-
cluding Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, per-
sons from 15 Central and South American
countries, Spain, and the Dominican Republic.
(See box, p. 4.) The histories and labor force char-
acteristics of these Hispanic-origin groups are
markedly different.'

P ersons of Hispanic origin make up one of

Labor force growth

Trends in labor force growth differ widely
among the major Hispanic ethnic groups. (See
chart 1.) Over the past 6 years, the number of
Central and South American workers in the
United States grew 61 percent—far outstripping
the other Hispanic groups. The number of Mexi-
can workers also grew rapidly—28 percent.
These increases were almost entirely the result
of rapid population growth, which was attribut-
able, in turn, to large waves of immigration. By
contrast, the number of Cuban workers in the
United States actually has been decreasing, as
population growth slowed to a trickle (mainly

because of the Cuban Government’s restrictions
on immigration) and as large numbers of the
earlier arrivals reached retirement age.

Overall, Hispanics accounted for approxi-
mately | of every 3 legal immigrants to the United
States during the 1980's. In addition, there were
many others who entered illegally. The number of
undocumented Hispanics who entered between
1980 and 1986 has been estimated at approxi-
mately 1.3 million.?

Mexican Americans are, by far, the largest sin-
gle Hispanic group, accounting for 63 percent of
all Hispanics in the U.S. labor force in 1992. As
chart 2 shows, Central and South Americans rep-
resented another 16 percent, followed by Puerto
Ricans (9 percent), Cubans (5 percent), and other
persons of Hispanic origin or descent (7 percent).

Roots of diversity

Many cultural similarities transcend these catego-
Ties to define a collective Hispanic or Latino iden-
tity. There is, in fact, a longstanding sentiment of
community among many Latin Americans. Rec-
ognizing the potential benefits of unity—that there
is “strength in numbers,” for example—Hispanic
political, humanitarian, and cultural organizations
in the United States often mobilize these feelings
to draw support from across the Hispanic ethnic

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 3


Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

poration and The Urban Institute, 1990), and Immigration
and Naturalization Service, 1990 Statistical Yearbook (Im-
migration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of
Justice, December 1991), pp. 52-53. Much of the apparent
increase in numbers of recent legal immigrants is an artifact
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (RCA) of 1986,
which legalized many who were already residing in the
United States. The act provided an amnesty period during
which more than 3 million Mexican workers applied for per-
manent residence, accounting for, by far, the majority of all
amnesty applicants.

> Central and South Americans were not included in this
survey. The results reported here are based on tabulations for
USS. citizens as well as noncitizens in the Latino National
Political Survey available from Rodolfo de la Garza, Depart-
ment of Government, University of Texas at Austin. Findings
from this survey are summarized in Rodolfo de la Garza and
others, Latino Voices: Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban
Perspectives in US, Politics (San Francisco, Westview
Press, 1992).

* Except where otherwise noted, the histories recounted
below have been compiled from Frank Bean and Marta
Tienda, The Hispanic Population of the United States
(New York, Russel Sage Foundation, 1987), pp. 7-35; and
Gregory DeFreitas, Inequality at Work: Hispanics in the
U.S. Labor Force (New York, Oxford University Press,
1991), pp. 10-52.

5 DeFreitas, Inequality at Work, pp. 11-13.

® David L. Torres, “Dynamics behind the formation of a
business class: Tucson's Hispanic business elite,” Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, February 1990, pp. 25-49;
and David L. Torres and Melissa Amado, “The quest for
power: Hispanic collective action in frontier Arizona,” in
Juan R, Garcia, ed., Mexican American Studies, vol. 3, 1992.

” The “emergency wartime program of importing labor
(signed in August, 1942 by President Franklin Roosevelt]

was known as the bracero program (from the Spanish for
‘working hand’)"; DeFreitas, Inequality at Work, p. 17. Un-
der pressure from businesses, primarily in the southwestem
States, the program was continued for more than two de-
cades.

* DeFreitas, Inequality at Work, p. 255.

° There are important restrictions on citizenship rights for
Puerto Ricans who live on the island. For example, they are
not allowed to vote for the U.S. president, they have a nonvot-
ing resident commissioner in the U.S. Congress, and they are
not represented in the U.S. Senate. Islanders receive many
USS. social services and are exempt from U.S. taxes.

°” César Andreu Iglesias, ed., Memoirs of Bernardo Vega.
A Contribution to the History of the Puerto Rican Community
in New York (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1984).

"' National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., A Blueprint for
Change: A Puerto Rican Agenda for the 1990’ s (Washington,
National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., 1991).

" The Washington Post, Nov. 1, 1992, p. A8.

'° Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical
Yearbook. pp. 52-53.

' Ibid.

'S Because of different weighting and estimation proce-
dures, the estimates presented in this article differ slightly
from those published elsewhere by the Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics.

'® Census figures show that the proportions of Puerto
Rican, men and women in the labor force in 1960—85 per-
cent for Puerto Rican men and 40 percent for Puerto Rican
women—were at least equal to those of non-Hispanics. The
subsequent decline of labor force participation among Puerto
Ricans appears to have halted in the mid- 1970's. The propor-

14 Monthly Labor Review August 1993

tion of Puerto Rican women in the tabor force actually rose
from 32 percent in 1976 to 46 percent in 1991; that for Puerto
Rican men hovered around 72 percent throughout the period.

For recent analyses of the employment situation for Puerto
Ricans, see: Vilma Ortiz, “Latinos and industrial change in
New York and Los Angeles,” pp. 119-31, in Edwin
Meléndez, Clara Rodriguez, and Janis Barry Figueroa, His-
panics in the Labor Force: Issues and Policies (New York,
Plenum Press, 1992); Luis Falc6n and Charles Hirschman,
“Trends in labor market positions for Puerto Ricans on the
mainland: 1970-1987,” in Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, February 1992, pp. 16-51; Maria Enchautegui,
“Migration out of New York and the labor force participation
of Puerto Rican and non-Hispanic women,” Discussion Paper
962-91(University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Re-
search on Poverty, December 1991); DeFreitas, Inequality at
Work; Bean and Tienda, The Hispanic Population; and Clara
E, Rodriguez, Puerto Ricans: Born in the U.S.A. (Boulder,
co, Westview Press, 1991).

”” Bean and Tienda, The Hispanic Population, pp. 295—
300. In general, foreign-born persons in the United States
have high participation rates regardless of educational attain-
ment, as shown in Joseph R. Meisenheimer II, “How do im-
migrants fare in the U.S. labor market?” Monthly Labor
Review, December 1992, pp. 3-19.

Bean and Tienda have also suggested that many Mexicans
and Central and South Americans live in areas with expand-
ing labor markets, particularly for entry-level positions and
that, as a result, the low-skill workers among them generally
face relatively favorable job opportunities. See Bean and
Tienda, The Hispanic Population, pp. 56-103. The Washing-
ton, Dc, metropolitan area—home to the largest number of
Central and South Americans in the United States—may be a
prime example, as it has had an extraordinarily rapid employ-
ment growth over the past decade. Among the fastest-grow-
ing jobs were janitors, cooks, and construction laborers;
Hispanics accounted for over 20 percent of the employment
in each of these in 1990, several times above their representa-
tion in the total Washington population (5.7 percent in 1990).
See a recent Washington Post article highlighting data from
the decennial censuses, “Work force disparity seen narrow-
ing,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 1992, pp. C1 and C3. A
similar situation may exist for Mexican-Americans in Cali-
fornia and Texas. A tabulation by John Kasarda suggests that
the number of entry-level jobs in Houston may have been ex-
panding in recent years. See a table and discussion of
Kasarda’s perspective in DeFreitas, Inequality at Work, p.
143. For an overview of debates concerning the relationship
between Hispanic labor force participation rates and aggre.
gate changes in demand for low-skill workers, see Ortiz,
“Latinos and industrial change”; Enchautegui, “Migration out
of New York”; and Roger Waldinger, “Changing ladders and
musical chairs: ethnicity and opportunity in post-industrial
New York,” Politics and Society, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 369-401.

'S As shown in tabulations by John Kasarda, the number of
jobs held by persons who had not attended college declined
by approximately 605,000 in the New York central city be-
tween 1970 and (980; the number held by persons with
higher levels of education increased by 505,000 over the
ame petiod. See table 3 of Kasarda’s “Urban industrial tran-
ion and the underclass,” pp. 26-47, in The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, January
1989, See DeFreitas, /nequality at Work, pp. 140-44 for a
similar discussion.

'° Data are available for 1960, 1970, and 1980 in Bean and
Tienda, The Hispanic Population, pp. 328-35. Note from
Bean and Tienda’s tabulations that there was some variation
by ethnicity. Puerto Ricans born on the island or the mainland
had similar likelihoods of being employed as managers in
1980, for example, and foreign-born Cubans were actually
somewhat more likely to be employed as managers than their



On the whole, the profiles of Puerto Rican men
and women who worked full time are generally
more favorable than those for Mexicans and Cen-
tral and South Americans, Puerto Ricans were
somewhat more likely to work in higher skilled
occupations, and this may be one important factor
behind the higher median earnings for those who
worked full time. On the other hand, as was noted
earlier, an unusually large proportion of the Puerto
Rican working age population was not in the labor
force, As a result, many Puerto Rican households
had no earners. This is a major reason why their
median household income in 1990 was the lowest
of all Hispanic groups and their poverty rate the
highest, as the following tabulation shows:

Median Percent of persons

household 15 years and over
income below poverty level

All Hispanics $22,330 28.1
Mexicans . 22,439 28.1
Puerto Ricans ... 16,169 40.6
Cubans ........ 25,900 16.9
Central and South

American...... 23,568 25.4
Other Hispanics... 25,635 215
Non-Hispanics . 30,513 12.1

Continued diversity

In sum, Hispanics are a composite of ethnic and
national origin groups that have very different his-
tories and labor force profiles. In 1992, Central
and South Americans were more likely than the
others, including non-Hispanics, to participate in
the labor force. Like Mexicans, Central and South
Americans tended to be employed in the lower
skilled occupations and to be paid low wages and
salaries. In contrast, Cubans and Other Hispanics
were about as likely as non-Hispanics to partici-
pate in the labor force. They also had a fairly high
proportion of managers and professionals and
relatively high median earnings. Puerto Ricans
were the least likely to participate in the labor
force and the most likely to be jobless, but those
who worked full time had an occupational distri-
bution and median earnings similar to those of
Cubans and Other Hispanics.

But even this assessment oversimplifies His-
panic diversity. Each group is, itself, a compos-
ite of more detailed subgroups made up of per-
sons who have markedly different labor force
and employment characteristics. Because the
demogra-phic and economic characteristics of
Hispanics are so diverse, many analysts have
questioned the wisdom of aggregating statistics
under the “Hispanic” label. Yet, as Peter Skerry
has observed, the common label has meaning to
many Hispanics themselves. Individuals from

across Hispanic ethnic groups do meet, in a vari-
ety of settings, to celebrate cultural heritage and
to work on common concems; in political are-
nas, the Hispanic label serves as a common ban-
ner under which diverse groups rally, giving
each a stronger voice.” Sometimes the appeal of
unity is precarious, overshadowed by tensions
between divergent interests. Such tensions will
probably persist for a long time.

THE NUMBER OF HISPANIC workers will continue to
increase at a rapid pace well into the next century.
BLS projections indicate that the proportion of the
USS, labor force accounted for by white non-His-
panics will have declined almost 6 percentage
points from 1990 to 2005, while the proportion
accounted for by Hispanics will have expanded by
an additional three points, reaching 11 percent of
the total labor force by 2005.” The proportions for
blacks and Asians and Pacific Islanders are also
projected to increase somewhat, all of whichsignals
an expanding ethnic and racial diversification in the
U.S. work force. An equally important trend which
will probably continue is that, as Hispanics immi-
grate from many parts of Latin America, the com-
position of their own labor force will continue to
diversify as well. q

Footnotes

‘Estimates of labor force characteristics come from data
obtained in the Current Population Survey. Identification of
persons of Hispanic origin is obtained from responses to the
survey question, “What is the origin or descent of each person
in this household?” Respondents are shown a “flashcard,” re-
produced below, and those who indicate categories 10-17 are
identified as being of Hispanic origin. Thus, Hispanics are
defined as persons who themselves, or whose ancestors, are
from Spanish-speaking countries.

‘What is the origin or descent of each person in this house
hold?

01 German 12 Mexican
02 Italian 14 Puerto Rican
03 Irish 15 Cuban
04 French 16 Central or South American
05 Polish (Spanish Countries)
06 Russian 17 Other Spanistt
07 English 20 Afro-American
08 Scottish (Black, Negro)
10 Mexican-American 26 Dutch
41 Chicano 27 Swedish
28 Hungarian
OR

30 Another group not listed

Persons who report themselves as Mexican-American,
Chicano, or Mexican are consolidated into one origin. As
shown above, Central and South Americans are all identified
according to a single category.

? See table 2.6 of Karen A. Woodrow and Jeffrey S. Passel,
“Post-IRCA undocumented immigration to the United States:
an assessment based on the June 1988 cps,” p. 53, in Frank D.
Bean, Barry Edmonston, and Jeffrey S. Passel, Undocu-
mented Migration to the U.S. (Washington, The RAND Cor-

Monthly Labor Review August 1993

13


Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

Age. Differences between the proportions of
Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the labor force
varied considerably by age. As can be seen in table
3, there was a much greater gap between Hispanic
and non-Hispanic women in age groups under 55
than the overall participation rates indicate. For
example, the percentage of Hispanic women 25 to
54 years of age who were in the labor force was
approximately 13 points below that for their non-
Hispanic counterparts. The reason the overall dif-
ference in labor force participation rates between
Hispanic and non-Hispanic women was much
smaller is that a greater proportion of the Hispanic
population was between the ages of 25 and 54,
ages at which persons are more likely to be in the
labor force.

Table 3 also shows that the proportions of
Puerto Rican women in the labor force were mark-
edly lower than those for other Hispanic women
across most age categories. For example, only 55
percent of Puerto Rican women who were 25 to 54
years of age participated in the labor force, com-
pared with more than 60 percent for other His-
panic women and 76 percent for non-Hispanics.

On average, almost 9 of 10 Hispanic men 20 to

24 years of age were in the labor force, a notably
higher proportion than for non-Hispanics. As a
general rule, differences between the proportions
of Hispanic and non-Hispanic men who partici-
pated in the labor force were not pronounced
among men who were 25 to 54 years of age. In
contrast, however, Puerto Rican men—like their
women compatriots—were much less likely to
Participate than other Hispanics and non-Hispan-
ics in each age category under 55. (See table 3.)

Educational attainment. Persons with higher
levels of educational attainment have traditionally
been more likely to participate in the labor force,
and this is particularly evident among Hispanic
women. (See table 4.) For those 25 to 54 years of
age who had attained a high school diploma, the
percentage in the labor force was, on average, only
about 5 points below that for non-Hispanics in the
same educational category (73 percent versus 79
percent). Furthermore, as table 4 also shows, col-
lege-educated Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Other
Hispanic women were actually more likely to
participate than their non-Hispanic counterparts.
Among Central and South American women,

Table 3. Labor force participation rates of Hispanics and non-Hispanics by sex and age, 1992 annual averages
Hispanic origin

Sex and age Centrat Non

Total Mexican | Fuerte Cuban | ond South | yyciher, | Hispanic

American pa

Men, 16 years and older ..... 80.5 82.4 70.0 73.0 85.6 76.0 75.2
16 to 19 years... 517 56.5 347 ¢) 495 40.5 53.9
20 to 24 years 87.5 29.8 77.0 0) 846 83.6 82.8
25 to 54 years. . 91.5 92.2 82.9 915 93.3 93.3 93.2
55 years and older 444 42.9 39.0 458 628 39.5 38.1
Women, 16 years and okier . 52.8 52.4 474 50.5 58.1 56.4 58.2
16 to 19 years. . 39.2 40.5 30.0 () 39.9 416 50.6
59.7 59.5 57.6 ¢) 57.1 62.4 72.7
on 625 614 55.5 69.3 66.1 702 75.9
55 years and older 226 20.3 18.0 25.1 314 25.0 23.0

‘ Data not shown where base is less than 35,000

SY

Table 4, _ Labor force participation rates of Hispanics and non-Hispanics 25 to 54 years of age by sex and
educational attainment, 1992 annual averages
Hispanic origin
‘Sex and educational attainment P Central oth Hee
Total Mexican Mea. Cuban | and South | one spar
American 'spanic
Men, 25 to 54 years of age...... 915 92.2 82.9 915 93.3 93.3 93.2
Less than a high school diploma 88.4 89.9 67.6 85.6 92.3 87.5 80,7
High school graduates or beyond 93.9 94.5 90.3 93.6 93.9 94.9 94.7
College graduates... sooo. 95.4 96.4 96.2 94.3 94.6 94.5 96.8
Women, 25 to 54 years of age . 625 614 55.5 69.3 66.1 70.2 75.9
Less than a high school diploma 475 479 28.9 48.2 614 44.4 53.0
High school graduates or beyond 73.4 748 714 75.8 686 785 786
College graduates ...... : 812 80.2 89.0 89.2 70.9 88.7 84.5,
10 Monthly Labor Review August 1993


Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

Chart 1. Rates of population and labor force growth of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics, 1986-92

Percent Percent
* 1 Population .
co OD Labor force J 60
50 [- + 50
407 4 40
sof + 30
2b -| 20
Ce +10
‘ a.
10 -10

Mexican = PuertoRican = Cuban. Central and Other Non-
South American Hispanic —_—Hispanic

Chart 2. Percent distribution of the Hispanic civilian labor force, 16 years and
older by type of origin, 1992 annual averages

Mexican

Other Hispanic

Central
and

Puerto Rican South American

Cuban

6 Monthly Labor Review August 1993


smaller number of Mexican professionals, particu-
larly from the northern state of Sonora, also
crossed into the United States to escape the upris-
ings. With older Mexican American families, they
became part of business elites in southwestern
towns like Tucson.’ Responding to worker short-
ages induced by World War I, other Mexican im-
migrants increasingly entered manufacturing.

The flow of workers from Mexico continued
throughout the years and was interrupted only by
the Great Depression. When agricultural labor
became scarce during World War II, the U.S.
Government instituted the bracero program,
which allowed hundreds of thousands of migrant
Mexicans to temporarily work on U.S. farms.’
Migrants continued to find low-wage jobs across
the border even after the program was discontin-
ued in 1964.

In the 1980’s, migration surged as Mexico ex-
perienced its worst economic downtum since the
1930’s.* Although the Mexican economic situa-
tion has improved in very recent years, wages re-
main much lower there than in the United States
and many Mexicans continue to look for work
across the border.

Mexican Americans tend to be concentrated in
the West and the South. The 1990 census indicated
that almost half lived in California and more than a
quarter in Texas.

Puerto Ricans. A Spanish colony for 4 centuries,
the island of Puerto Rico became a U.S. posses-
sion following the Spanish-American War in
1898. Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship
in 1917, and, after a series of political reforms, the
island became a Commonwealth (or “Free Associ-
ated State”) in 1952. This unique political status
combines U.S. citizenship with self-rule. Puerto
Ricans elect their own governor and local officials,
for example, while retaining complete freedom to
move back and forth to the U.S. mainland.’

Puerto Ricans had been migrating to the main-
land long before Commonwealth status, however.
In the 1890's, some were employed in cigar-
making shops in Florida and New York, and on
the eve of World War I, there was a small Puerto
Rican community in New York City where
many worked in munitions factories and ship-
yards, as has been compellingly described in the
Memoirs of Bernardo Vega, one of these early
immigrants."

Once a major producer of sugar, the island’s
economy was transformed after World War II, as
factories began to replace plantations. The eco-
nomic transformation gained momentum during
the early 1950’s, attributable largely to a system of
tax breaks for U.S. firms on the island. At first, as
DeFreitas notes, most of the new industries—like
textiles and apparel—were labor intensive, but

they could not absorb all of the agricultural work-
ers who had been displaced. Later, in the 1960’s,
the industries which were attracted to the island—
including petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals—
were increasingly capital-intensive. Although so-
cial services and rising wages increased the stan-
dard of living, thousands of Puerto Ricans contin-
ued to be displaced.

Relatively cheap air fares enabled large num-
bers to leave the island in the 1950"s. Many sought
jobs in several large central cities, primarily in the
textile, garment, and leather factories of the North-
east, especially New York and the steel mills of
Illinois and Ohio—typical destinations for earlier,
European immigrants.'' Double-digit unemploy-
ment rates on the island and relatively low salaries
continue to push many Puerto Rican workers to
the U.S. mainland. Of these, 60 percent are con-
centrated in a few mid-Atlantic States; New York
alone accounts for 40 percent of all Puerto Ricans
on the mainland.

Cubans. Unlike other groups of Hispanics, Cuban
immigrants were primarily political refugees. The
vast majority left their island in various waves af-
ter Fidel Castro’s assumption of power in 1959.
By 1980, there were more than 800,000 Cuban
Americans in the United States, representing a
greater than 10-fold increase over a 20-year pe-
riod. After the famous Mariel boatlift of 1980,
which brought in another 125,000 Cubans, immi-
gration dropped off sharply due to restrictions im-
posed by the Cuban government. Nevertheless,
thousands since then have attempted to cross the
perilous 90 miles of ocean separating them from
the Florida Keys. The 1990 census enumerated
approximately 1 million Cuban Americans; 2 of 3
lived in Florida.

A recent sharp increase in the number of Cu-
bans who have made the journey to the United
States suggests that conditions on the island have
worsened. Using small boats and rafts, more than
2,000 Cubans successfully completed the voyage
to Florida in 1992—the highest level of Cuban
immigration since Mariel.'?

Many Cuban refugees began their careers
here in lower skilled jobs and in positions far
less prestigious than those they had back home.
Over the years, however, a remarkably large
proportion of Cuban Americans rose up the oc-
cupational hierarchy. Some, particularly those in
the earlier waves of immigration, arrived in the
United States with solid business or professional
experience and relatively high levels of educa-
tional attainment, which helped them get ahead.
In addition, many received job training and
placement as part of a large Cuban-assistance
program financed by the U.S. Government.
Early on, they formed strong and cohesive com-

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 5


Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force

groups. At the same time, there are important dif-
ferences among Hispanics which history and ge-
ography have imposed.

Even today, when given a choice, most mem-
bers of groups designated as Hispanic classify
themselves according to specific ethnic or na-
tional categories. This was illustrated recently
by the Latino National Political Survey, a study
of Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans. When
asked to indicate which ethnic self-labels they
preferred, 75 percent of the respondents chose to
identify themselves as Mexicans, Cubans, or
Puerto Ricans. Only 18 percent chose a pan-eth-
nic label like Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
American, while 7 percent identified themselves
as Americans.’

Throughout the history of the United States,
Hispanics have immigrated from different coun-
tries, at different times, for different reasons, and
have settled in different parts of the country.
Their histories, and therefore their identities, are
diverse.‘

Mexicans. In contrast to the other Hispanic-ori-
gin groups, most of the earliest Mexican Ameri-

cans were actually not immigrants. They were
Mexicans who lived on land which had been part
of northern Mexico until the end of the Mexican
War in 1848, when it was forcibly annexed by the
United States. As Gregory DeFreitas writes:
A series of armed expeditions, often encour-
aged by Washington, led to the secession of
Texas from Mexico as a pretext to start a full-
scale war. The Mexican War ended with the
‘Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (known to genera-
tions of Mexican historians as “the amputation
of 1848”), which stripped the country of nearly
one-half of its national territory: the area that
would become Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and large parts of Colorado, Nevada,
and Utah.... [Approximately] 80,000 to
100,000 Mexicans . . . stayed on in the region.*

Under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848, Mexicans were decreed to be
USS. citizens.

Decades later, thousands of Mexicans fled the
poverty and bloodshed of the Mexican Revolution
(1910-1917), crossing the border into the South-
western United States to work on farms, railroad
crews, and in the mines. At the same time, a

A note on crs estimates of the Hispanic labor force

‘The data presented in this article are based on estimates from the Current Population Survey (crs),
amonthly sample survey of persons in some 60,000 households representing the U.S. population. To
derive estimates of the size of the Nation’s working-age population, cps sample results are routinely
weighted to independent estimates of the civilian noninstitutional population. These estimates (or
“population controls,” as they are technically called) are derived from decennial census population
figures, which are then carried forward with adjustments for births, deaths, and net immigration. The
most recent cps estimates—as of the publication of this study—are based on weights derived from
the 1980 census. For additional information on the cps sample, see “Labor Force, Employment, and
Unemployment from the Current Population Survey,” 8s Handbook of Methods, September 1992,
pp. 3-13.

Results from the 1990 census showed that the actual size of the Hispanic population and labor
force was somewhat greater than the estimates used in the crs at the time. For example, as indicated
below, the census count of Hispanics in the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older
was 828,000 higher than the estimate used in the crs at the time. The discrepancy between the cps and
census estimates of the Hispanic civilian labor force was 487,000. The 1992 cps data for Hispanics,
which are discussed in this paper, are probably similarly understated:

Civilian
noninstitutional Civilian
population labor force
(thousands) (thousands)
1990 census . 15,026 10,022
April 1990 cPs 14,198 9,535
Difference . 828 487

Beginning in January 1994, when a host of other changes will also be introduced to the cps, the
population estimates underlying the data from the survey are to be “‘re-weighted” to bring them into
line with the findings from the 1990 census. This procedure will boost the cps estimates of Hispanics,
showing that there was even greater growth for this group over the past decade than is indicated in
this article.

4 > Monthly Labor Review August 1993


native-born counterparts. Also see Marta Tienda, “The
Puerto Rican worker: current labor market status and future
prospects,” Journal of Hispanic Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 27-51,
for a similar finding.

® The Hispanic population in the United States: March
1991, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 455
(Bureau of the Census, 1991).

2 Peter Skerry, “E pluribus Hispanic?” Wilson Quarterly,
Summer 1992, pp. 62-73. Skerry is director of University of
Califomia at Los Angeles, Center for American Politics and
Public Policy in Washington, Dc.

2 See table 5 of Howard N Fullerton, Jr., “Labor force
projections: the baby boom moves on,” Monthly Labor Re-
view, November 1991, p. 41

That’s progress

Thanks to the historical progress made as a result of the heterogeneity of the
wage- and salary-earning classes, the prevailing acceptance of the objective
needs of the capitalist economy and the full social and intellectual ‘citizenship’
attained by employers and managers, the labour movement exerts less attrac-
tion than it once did. It is more prosaic, more pragmatic, less enveloped in an
emotional aura, frequently not raising dramatic questions. Young workers
themselves, except for an activist, politicized minority, make requests of the
unions that are less strongly associated than in the past with social and political
ideals and militancy and with analogous support for the parties of the left.

European Industrial Relations: The Challenge of Flexi

—Guido Baglioni
“Industrial Relations in Europe in the 1980s.”

ity,
Baglioni, Guido and Colin Crouch, eds.
(London, Sage Publications, 1992), p. 36.

Monthly Labor Review August 1993

15