View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OP BOSTON
Research Department

FOR EMPLOYMENT IN N M ENGLAND COMPNITIES
In nearly every important center of population In New England, as well
as in most of the smaller cities, community leaders have been asking where
the jobs will be found that will make possible attainment of tho goal of
tt

full employment11 after the country has returned to a peace economy* '•What

sort of jobs will be available and what occupations will the working population be qualified to fill?11
Much time and effort has been devoted to finding an answer to this
question* Many companies have attempted to establish goals for high-level
employment after the war and numerous community surveys have been undertaken
to determine expected postwar levels of private employment#
These .efforts on the part of private industry to anticipate postwar
levels have been mainly concerned with manufacturing employment, since this
is where the greatest problems of readjustment are expected*

In con-

centrating upon the problem of attaining a high postwar lovol of manufacturing employment^ however, the importance of nonmanufacturing industries as
sources of jobs has not received the attention it deserves* Uhdor normal
poacotime conditions more than half of this region1 s working population is
engaged in nonmaaufacturing pxtrsuits*
Purpose of the Study
This study, which deals with the characteristics of employment
important centers of population in the Boston Federal Reserve District,
has three principal objectives• A section of this report is devoted to each*
The first is designed to show how wartime changes have altered the production pattern of this region and caused manufacturing employment to become
disproportionately high in relation to the total* In peacetime (19I4.O),



- 2 nonmanufaoturing employment accounted f or 60 per cent of total, and manufaoturing for the remainder, but the war has nearly reversed the usual
relationship* After the war, it is expeeted that these conditions will return to somewhere near their prewar status* Details regarding the impact
of the war on employment are available for only a few of the h$ areas, and
these are discussed in the report*
The second objective is to study the normal distribution of employment during peacetime. There is a wide variation in the industrial patterns
shown by the h5 different areas studied. Some are primarily manufacturing
centers, others are centers of trade and service, transportation, scats
of government, and the like# Prom the occupational standpoint the variations are likewise oxtonsivo.
M

w

Hand workorsj as a group, predominate over

head workers11 -in every instance, but within these general groups there are

significant differences in the importance of the various occupations. » For
example, semi-skilled workers are usually the largest division of whand
workers11 but there are a few cases where either skilled or unskilled workers
are more important. In the metropolitan districts greater weight, on the
average, is attached to nonmanufaoturing jobs than is the case in the
smaller areas. The same is true of whead workers11 as compared with whond
workers #n
The third objective is to present a summary of underlying trends in
the distribution of the labor force as disclosed by census data. Prom
1910. to 1930 there was a definite shift in every New England state from
occupations concerned with the production of physical goods into distributive and service pursuits. In northern New England .the shift into distribution and service was principally from agriculture; in sov.therA K«w'
England,- it TOS fr$&* ma&ttfacturi&g; This tendency probably continued
from 1950 to 19^0 but on account of ehaage-s *£n the sco?e of the census
it is not-rerwdily susc^tible of measurement.



• 5 A recent study of the United States Bureau of the Census comparing
occupational statistics for the Nation as a whole over a period of years
indicates that there has been a steady upward trend in the social-economic
status of workers since 1910 (the earliest date studied) with more and
more going over from the manual worker class to the white-collar class*
This has considerable significance in its relation to changing xnarketa for
goods and services as it is obvious, that Hhead workers11 and whand workers11
have quite different spending habits over and above the necessaries of
life. The census study concludes with a discussion of probable future
trends for each of the six social-economic classes analyzed. Because it
seems reasonable to expect that the same general conditions would apply to
New England as to the United States they are summarized at the end of this
report*
I # Impact of the War on Employment in New England
The war has made substantial alterations in the production pattejrn
of the District and has changed the relative importance of the various
classes of occupations of the working population correspondingly*

Before

the war the manufacturing industries of this region were primarily producers of consumer goods; two-thirds of their output consisting of textile,
leather, pulpvrood, chemical and similar products that vrere rapidly used up #
Today producer goods such as ships, aircraft, metal and machine produots
predominate*
In IShO over one-half of the total number of employed workers in New
England were engaged in nonmanufacturing occupations, a situation which
was likewise true for 27 of the i . areas which are discussed in this study.
j5
(See Table 1 # ) During the war manufacturing employment has increased
sharply, particularly in centers of war production, and employsnent in nonmanufacturing fields has declined*



This xrae primarily due to the limitations

- h of the available labor force and the fact that the region1 s principal
industrial areas have been areas of acute labor shortage or labor stringency.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics makes monthly estimates of employment in
nonagricultural establishments by states and regions, which are ootaparable
with census data# According to these sources, in April 19^0 about kO per
cent of New England^ civilian nonagricultural employment was engaged in
manufacturing and 60 per cent in other occupations. By November Y)h$ (a
month near the peak of war production) manufacturing employment had risen
to 53 psr cent of total and other nonagricultural occupations had fallen
to iff per cent. Similar shifts in the distribution of employment have
occurred in each of the principal centers of war activity in this District.
Table 2 shows how the war affected manufacturing and other nonagricultural employment, percentagewise, in 6 metropolitan areas in the
Boston Federal Reserve District. It will be noted that the largest percentage increase in manufacturing employment occurred in the Springfield
area which also had the largest gain in total employment) and that the
smallest gains were in the Fall River area. The industries where the
principal expansion occurred were transportation equipment (ships and aircraft), electrical machinery, machinery, and ordnance and accessories.
Other nonagricultural employment declined in every instance. The table
also shows that manufacturing employment has declined from the T/artime
peak in each case since November 19^3 • Related data for changes in other
nonagricultural employment since November 19b3 aro

no

^ available.

In a report entitled tfPost~War Connecticut11 recently issued by the
Connecticut Post-War Planning Board the following data on wartime changes
in employment of all workers covered by unemployment compensation are
given. The areas shown are labor market areas as defined by the State Un*
employment Compensation Division and do not correspond with the metropolitan



- 5 or municipal areas used in this study*
IMPACT OP THE WAR ON EMPJiOttJENT IH CONWECTICUT

Industry with greatest
Percentage Inon
Industry
over..l5ltO

Labor Market

Area

% Change

Trans. Equip1t#
(Submarines)
Trans • Equip1t*
(Aircraft Parts
& Engines)
Iron & Steel
Iron & Steel
Nonferrous Metals

New London *
Hartford

New Haven
Waterbury

• 39

+195
•l6O
•120

+ 63

In Massachusetts the State Department of Labor and Industries conducts an annual census of manufactures*

Coiaparison of the 1939 $&& 19^3

data shows that there wore 19 municipalities having ovor l#000 factory
wage-earners in 1939 where factory employment increased more than 5° P er
oont*

Thoso cities^ arranged by size according; to the number employed,

were as follows:
IMPACT OP THE WAR ON FACTORY EMPLOYMEKT IN MASSACHUSETTS*
Municipalities registering gains of 50 per cent or over
1
Wage
%
Earners
Increase
1Q3Q

City

Worcester
New Bedford
Springfield
Lowell

26,573

82^

22,092

Lynn

•

12,^50

Quincy
Pittsfield
Chicopee

8,311
7,112
6,902
5.155

52
73
58
175
235
95
159
55

Watertown

13,279

i

City

Wage
; Earners

Waltham
Maiden
Newton
Athol
W # Springfield
Canton
Hudson
Greenfield
Palmer

4,321
3,615
3,10k.
2,159
1,966
1,672
1,636
1,309
1,157

Increase

221#

65
120

76
192
108
100

267
93
RE

* Does not include employment in Government arsonals, Navy Yards, otct




- 6 Before the war this Districts manufacturing production and employ*
ment were mainly concentrated in its eight largest metropolitan areas*
The war has resulted in a further increase in the concentration of industry*

It has also initiated great movements of workers within the

areas to new occupations, new industries and new places of employment*
The net increase in manufacturing employment was the result of four principal movements:
a # Transfer of workers from curtailed civilian goods
industries to war industries*
b* Transfer of workers from distributive and service
fields to war industries*
c* Migration of workers from rural areas to war produotion centers*
d* Increased .employment of women, young people of
school age and elderly people*
The increased demand for workers which ocourred in war industries
led to severe labor shortages in the principal industrial centers* The
fact that shipbuilding, aircraft and electrical machinery facilities wore
often located in the same industrial areas as tortile mills, shoo factories and machine shops resulted in a competition for the available labor
supply on the basis of wage rates and skills*
Today, manufacturing is a disproportionately high part of the national
output and in most industrial areas manufacturing employment has boon correspondingly expanded*

By the same token, nortmanufacturing employment is

disproportionately lovr. In the readjustment which will follow the war
it will be necessary to have some shifting back from manufacturing to nonmanufacturing occupations.
The shift back to a peacetime economy, with a few exceptions, is
not expected to be as difficult for New England communities as for those
in other regions of the country where entirely new war industries have
been created, the peacetime future for which may be open to question in
some cases. The amount of new plant construction by the Government has



• 7 •
been relatively small in New England* Barely 5 per eent ef the Govern*
mentis investment in industrial facilities twm June 1 & 0 te March t & 5
was made in this region, while 9 per eent ef alt prlae wpply eentraet*
were placed here#

In 1939# the Census of Manufactures shewed that the

value of products manufactured in New England represented apprexiaateljf
this same proportion (9 per cent) of the Nati+a** total output*
New England's war business has been te a great extent in !%• regular
lines* War products such as textiles and apparel* leather and shoes*
some machinery and metal products* and pof sibly eleetronif equipment o M
devioes are not expected to face any sharp •ur^ailment after the war*
because civilian demands on these industries will probably continue te
be active for some time*
The ending of the war in Europe hag BO far not resulted in any sig»
nifleant surplus of labor in New England*8 largest war centers* Such
cutbacks and terminations of war contracts as have already occurred have
only served to lessen the labor shortage - not to eliminate it#

It is

significant that the five largest metropolitan areas in this District
were still classified in the categories of acute or stringont manpower on
May 18, 19^5» ^ ° principal placos where sizeable layoffs havo occurred
have boon in the shipbuilding yards of South Portland, Maine % Hingham*
Mass # | and Providence, Rhode Island*

In Springfield, Mass** vrherc a cut-

back of l#300 workers has occurr6d at ^he Springfield Armory* it is re*
ported that a fairly hoavy labor demand exists whijh* is considered to be
more than enough to absorb the workers who will be released*
The major decline in employment in New England* outside of shipbuilding and aircraft* is likely to occur in the manufacture of war
munitions* while other industries* which have been generally underserviced
during the war will tend to maintain or inorease their employment* Tex*
tiles furnish what is probably the most critical problem in the war program



•

8 -

today, and New England is one of the principal centers of production in
this field#
How to get workers back into their prewar civilian jobs is a difficult problem as long as labor shortages exist and war industries
continue to pay substantially higher wages* The relatively much lower
wages paid in the textile mills as compared with those paid in the shipyards has been an important factor affecting labor shortages in such
textile centers as New Bedford. As long as the workers of New Bedford
can get higher w^ges in the shipyards at Providence, Quincy and perhaps
other fairly distant points, they Tdll not be available for work in the
textile mills of New Bedford*
In spite of these difficulties, New England communities appear to
have an opportunity to capitalize on potential markets earlier than
many other areas because their reconversion problems are less difficult.
With I . per cent of the population of this United States included in New
43
England, tho Middle Atlantic States and Ohio, a tremendous market is
available for New England industry if it is properly planned for and
developed*
II, The .Distribution of the Working Population in
The J . areas covered by this study include 11 metropolitan dis45
tricts, 3 groups of twin cities that have been .paired because of thoir
proximity, and 31 individual municipalities not includod in the fore-*
going classes which in 19^0 had a population of more than 10,000 persons
each. The population of these I . areas in total is equivalent to ap45
proximately four-fifths of tho population of the District, and 88 per cent
of the combined total is concentrated in the 11 metropolitan districts**
* Tho term "metropolitan district" as used in this study rofors to tho
metropolitan districts as defined in the 19lj.O Census of ^Population*



- 9 Statistical data on the number of employed workers llj. years old and
over, by place of residence, are contained in the 19^0 Census of Population, These data are available for all urban places of 10,000 and up
and are broken down in two ways: by major occupation groups and by industry groups. The discussion which follows in this section is based
upon information derived from this source,
In 19^0, ko per cent of the employed workers in the 1*5 areas studied
were in manufacturing occupations and 60 per cent in no:mnanufacturing#
An analysis of the distribution of employment between these two major
classifications for the I4.5 areas is given in Table 1 # Because of the
fact that metropolitan districts are usually important centers of distribution and service, the 11 areas so designated show a higher average
proportion of the working population engaged in nonmanufacturing occupations (62 per cent) than is the case with the 34 smaller areas (5^
per cent)*
Of the 12 major industry groups of employed workers shown in the
census, only the eight largest are important enough to consider in this
discussion. The percentage which each of the&e groups represented in
relation to total employment for the I . areas is as follows:
45
Manufacturing
Yfholesale & Retail Trade
19
Professional & Related Services 9
Personal Services
8
Transportation & Utilities
6
Construction
ij.
Finance, Ins, & Real Estate
k
Government
]+
All Other
6
Total
"Agriculture, forestry and fishing11 and tlminingtl the so-called
Extractive industries,11 included tinder MA11 Other,11 represented less
than 2 per cent of the total. The two other minor groups not shown
separately consisted of ^business a^d repair services* and w amusement,



-

10 -

recreation and related servioes*11 Table 3 shows, for each of the 1*5
areas analyzed, the percentage of total employment which each of these
eight major industries represented in 19^0*
There was a considerable amount of variation between the U$ centers
as regards the importance of each major industry as a source of jobs*
(See Table J*) In Southbridge, Mass*,.for example, manufacturing provided nearly threo-fourths of tho jobs, whereas in Bangor only one-seventh
of tho total were so engaged*
1
1

Those two areas were tho Mhighfl and tho

low11 areas with respect to manufacturing employment*

Corresponding data

for all eight principal industries were as follows:
VARIATIONS IN THE CONCENTRATION OP E2£PL0*MENT BY INDUSTRY GROUPS
High
Low
^Per
Per ,
Major Industry Groups
Area
Area
Centr
Southbridge 7<#
Bangor
27
Concord, N*H< 18
Bangor
Ik
Rutland
17
Westerly
i 7
Hartford
! 8
New London i 1 5

Bangor
Southbridge 10
Southbridge ! 1>
Webster
! U
Southbridge
Gardner,Mass i 2
Berlin,N*H# I 1
Vfebster
CVI

Manufacturing
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Professional Services, etc*
Personal Services
Transp* & Utilities
Construction
Finance, Insur, & Heal Eat*
Government

In four of the k5 areas studied the largest single group of employed
workers for any of the eight industry groups listed above was in the field
of wholesale and retail trade* These aroas and the percentages of total
employed in trade wore: Bangor, 27 por cent; Portland, 26 per cent;
Burlington, 25 por Cent; Rutland* 2lj. per cent* Each of these cities is a
focal point of trade and distribution for a much larger surrounding aroa
than is included within its own boundaries* In Concord, N* H # the most
important industry group v/as "Professional and Related Sorvices#w
oince these percentages refer only to employed workers residing in
the area they do not necessarily indicate the distribution of workers
employed in the area* In small areas these tv/o approaches may differ
considerably. The larger the area, the closer they agree*



- 11 The reasons are not obvious in every case why these particular eight
areas happen to be the "high11 points for the eight industry groups shown
above• For example, Southbridge, where the American Optical Company is
the principal industry, shows the heaviest concentration of manufacturing
workers* Bangorfs leading position in trade is the result of its being
tho trading center for a large surrounding rural area#

This may also ex*

plain its' relatively high position in the personal services group*
Rutland is the home office of the Rutland Railroad which no doubt explains its prominence in transportation. Hartford is the leading insurance center of the country which accounts for its high standing in the
field of finance, insurance and real estate. And at New London, naval
installations undoubtedly account for the high level of government
employment.
The analysis of the working population on the basis of occupations
has been made to eonform with a social-economic grouping of the Nation1 s
labor force which was used in a recent study of trends, 1910 to 19^0,
made by the Census Bureau, which will be referred to in the third part
of this study*

Six principal occupational groups of workers are usod:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(U)
(5)

Professional Persons
Proprietors, Managers & Officials
Clerks & Kindred Workers
Skilled Workers & Craftsman
Somi~skillod Workers

(6) Unskillod Workers
The first three groups together, may be termed the whead workers11 and
the last three groups together may be termed the tfhand workers # w

It is

suggested in the Census Bureau* s analysis that a comparison of the proportion of fthead workersft as between different areas would be, at least, a
rough measure of the relative social-economic status of the areas#

Table

k presents such a comparison for the k5 centers in the Boston Federal
Reserve District.



-

12 -

A comparison of Table 3 and Table k shows that areas having a high
percentage of employment in the flhead workers11 group are generally high
in nonmanufacturing employment*

Since the spending habits of "head

workers11 often differ from those of whand workers11 this approach should
find some application in analyzing markets•
As with the distribution of employment by industries$ it was also
true for social-economic groups that the range of variation between individual areas was fairly broad. The high and low items for each
social-economic class were as follows:
VARIATIONS IN THE CONCENTRATION OP EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONS
Occupational Groups

High
Per
Area

i

r

Low
Area

Per

Social-Economic Groups
Professional IPersorTs
Proprietors, Managers & Officials
Clerks & Kindred Workers
Skilled Workers & Craftsmen
Semi-skilled Workers
Unskilled Workers

Burlingtoi
Bangor
Rutland
26
Bath
32
Webster ; 61
Berlin

Webster
W
Webster
5
Biddeford 12
Augusta
9
Barre
21
Pittsfield 8

Head Workers vs # Hand Workers
Head Workers
Hand Workers

Burlingtor
Webster 1

Webster

78 Burlington 51"

There was a larger percentage of "hand workers.11 than "head workersft
in every area studied in the District; but tho percontage of "head
workers11 was higher in the metropolitan districts than in the smaller
areas* The reverse was true of "hand workers*w
Since these percentages refer only to employed workers rosiding in
tho area they do not necessarily indicate the distribution of workers
employed in tho area. In small areas these two approaches may differ
considerably. The larger tho area, tho closer they agroo#




- 13 III* Trends in the Distribution of the Labor Force
The foregoing analysis of the distribution of the working population
in 19^0 gives only a static picture of conditions and is incomplete without some discussion of trends* It is unfortunate that there are no
comparable statistics of employed workers by industries and by occupations
in the earlier censuses* The concept of "gainful workers11 which was
used prior to 1S£J£> was considerably larger than, that of "employed workers"
since it included all persons who reported a gainful occupation regardless of whether they were working or not at the time of the census*
While this is not exaotly comparable with the 19^0 concept of "labor force,"
it is very close if new workers be excluded* In addition to this basic
change, the 19U0 classifications of occupations and industries were
altered considerably*
Even if these changes had not been made it would still be difficult to measure trends because of area considerations. The l$£j.O census
was the first to be tabulated for metropolitan districts or for municipalities having from 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants* Such areas include
most of the population involved in the prosent study. Because of the
decentralization of population which has boon taking place in most large
metropolitan areas

in rocont years* it v/ould be meaningless to attempt

to use the statistics for a central city alone as a measure of tho changes
in composition of the working population of such an aroa*

In every

metropolitan area in New England the population of the central city has
been increasing at a much slowr rate thto in the outlying communities
and in a majority of cases (Boston, Springfield, Holyoke, NOT; Haven,
Lawrence, Worcester, New Bedford, Waterbttry), it has actually been declining* The people who have moved out into the suburbs are not necessarily
typical of those who remain, so that the decentralization movement tends
to affect the character of the working population remaining behind*



Although changes in the scope of the 19^0 Census render its comparisons with earlier censuses impracticable,- insofar as the working
population is concerned,- there was no great change made in the scope
of the Census between 1910 and 1930* a^d during that period in every
New England state there was a definite shift from ocoupaticns concerned
with the production of physical goods into distributive and service
pursuits. In the table which follows, "Production of Physical Goods,11
includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining, as well as manufacturing and mechanical industries*
DISTRIBUTION OP GAINFUL WCRK3R3 IH HER ENGLAND
Two Principal Occupational Divisions
1910 - 1930

State
NEW* ENGLAND
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut

Percentage of Total Gainful Workers
Distribution
Production of
Physical Goods
and Service
1910
1930
1910 ! 1936
\
5Q>3#
ILO 2SS 1 Uo.at
68 t 8
66 f 8
55,6
61# 5
62.8

57.0
59.2
58.5
&6.2

5lU

31.2
# [||^/|

38.5
37.2

l»0.8
41.5
53.8
48.6

In the case of the three northern Hew England states the decline
in occupations concerned with the production of physical goods was principally in extractive industries? in the three southern Hour England States
it was mainly in manufacturing and mechanical industries#

In all casos

the distributive and service occupations showed approximately the same
gain in importance«
The Connecticut Postwar Planning Board1 s recent report, wPcst
War Connecticut/1 shows how the relative importance of manufacturing as
$ source of employment has been declining in that statef

"In 1919,* the

report states, f!approximately one-half of all workers in the state were



- 15 classified as manufacturing workers. By 1929 this proportion had declined to 37 p w cent, and by 1939 to 3° P e r cent#t!
According to a recent study covering the period 1910 to 1 9 ^ made
by the United States Bureau of the Census and contained in a report entitled "Comparative Occupation. Statistics 1870-19I+011 wthe social-economic
status of the Nation1 s labor force was rising rather rapidly from 1910
to 191+0. The trend was definitely upward - definitely away from heavy,
>
arduous, unskilled labor, and definitely toward more highly skilled
manual pursuits and intellectual pursuits.* Statistics given for the
Nation as a whole show that "he&d workers11 increased in importance from
37 # 6 per cent of total gainful workers in 1910 to Ul*5 per cent in 19^0,
whereas "hand workers11 decreased from 62#i). per cent of total to 58»5
per cent#
If -agricultural workers, (a group which as a whole has been declining sharply in percentage of total), were excluded in the foregoing
national comparison (in order to observe the trends for a group of
workers more newly typical of New England), the following facts would
be disclosed:
1 # In 1910, 31 VQT c e a* °? a ll nonagricultural
tf
gainful workers" were classed as "hoad workers, "in 19^0, 38 P°r cent* This represented more than
a doubling of the number, which was 7»9 million
in 1910, 16,3 million in 19^0.
2 # The sharpest increase within the "hoad workers"
class was in the group, "clorks and kindrod
workers," the sp-called whito collar workers which
increasod in total from 3«8 million in 1910 to
8 # 9 million in 191+0, and in relation to all nonagricultural employment from 15 per cent to 21
per cont#
In summarizing probable future trends by oconomic groups the Census
study lists the following changes as to be expected for the Nation as
a whole. It seems reasonable to suppose that corresponding trends may
bo expected also in New England:



-

16 a

1 # The professional class will grow in relative
importance#
2 # Farmers will decrease and other proprietors
will increase in relative importance»
3* Clerks and kindred workers may continue to
increase in relative importance#
ij,. Skilled workers probably will decrease in relative importance after the war*
5 # Semi-skilled workers will become the largest
group•
6 9 Unskilled workers will continue to decrease in
relative importance•
7# The upward trond in tho social^ooonomic status
of the labor forco will continue*

May




45 LEADING CENTERS IN THE BOSTON FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT, 19t|.O

Area

ployed
of 45
Areas

TOTAL - hS AREAS

2,294,2?! lOO.OOff 906 f 689

Total

11 METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 2 , ^
ocff
Providence
11.52
Eartford-New Britain
204,
8.89
Springfield-Holyoke
1^6,053 6.37
New Haven
6 5.28
Lowell-Lawrenee-Haverhill 120,871 5.27
107,860 4.70
Woroester
Fall River-New Bedford
100,775 4.39
Waterbury-Naugatucl#(a)
14.7,968 2.09
Portland Aree#(b)
37,037 1*61
Mane hester# (o)
28,353 1.24

Manufactur
% oj

Number

Area

Non-Manufaoturing
% of
Number
Area_
1,388,142
1*23

123,611
88,832
60,654
47,185
63,626
45,550
54,619
28,828
7,879
13,268

46.8
43.'5
41.5
39.0
52.6
5^2
60.1
21.3
46.8

140,725
115,212
85.399
73f75l
57,245
58,510
19! 140
29,158
15.085

*41

•

45'

288.li.92
34 SMALLER AREAS
154.799
Lewlston-^uburn
37789
12,786 53.5
23,916 1.04
11,1-50
Fitchburg«»Leominster
8,581 47.4
18,12^
Pittsfield(Mas8 f )
9,543
•79
8,621 60.7
Adams-N, Adam*
1^,205
5,584
.62
8,100 58.8
Nashua
13,769
.60
5,669
5,366 45*4
Taunton
11,827
6,461
.52
Torringten
11,460
4,127
.50
7,333 64.0
Hew London
11,6
2,570 22.6
8,7S
Bangor
1,588 15.2
10,I
8,8'
Burlington
9 ,74
7,545
2,195 22,5
Concord(N, H.)
1,682 17.8
9,khB
7,766
,41
Norwioh(Cotm.)
39,3
.38
8,757
5,314
3M3
Biddeford
8,J+02
•37
2,966
5,436 64.7
Gardner(Mass,)
.34
4,685 60,7
3,034
7,719
Augusta
4,911
t"38
7M
2,533 34.0
Southbridge
7,081
4,928 69.6
2,153
•'31
Waterville
5,864
.27
2,307 37.4
6,171
Greenfield
4,169
.26
1,813 30.3
5,982
4,769
Rutland
.26
1,073 18.4
5,842
3,123
Dover(N. H.)
5.777
.25
2,654 45.9
5,680
2,676
Berlin(N. H # )
3,004 52.9
58.6
Milford(Mass»)
5,585
3,274
2,311
.23
5,349
1,961 36.7
3,388
Keene
3,198
2,118 39.8
5,316
.23
Portsmouth
2,608
2,346 47.4
4,954
•82
Willimantic
3,274 66.5
4,927
.21
1,653
Webster
2,591 54.0
2,212
4,803
.21
Clareraont
1,828 39.2
4,662
.20
2,834
Laoonia
4,582
•20
2,109
2,473 54.0
Roohester
4,557
.20
1,853
2,704 59.3
Athol
4,551
.20
2,803
1,748 38.4
Plymouth
4,003
1,832
.17
2,171 54.2
Bath
.17
3,937
1,352 34.3
2,585
Barre(Vt.)
2.186
#17
1,605 42.3
3,791
Westerly
not available, '(b) Portland, So. Portland & Westbrook.
^ Metropolitan district data
(c) Manchester oity only.
(a) Waterbury and Naugatuck,
TJ, S. Centu* of Population, ^
Source:



Table 2
THE WAR OK EMPLOYMENT - 6 METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE BOSTON FEDERAL EBSERlffi DISTRICT

Metropolitan Areas

Percentage Change
April 1940 to November
Manufacturing Other ITon- Total JlonAgr» Empl* Agr»
Employment

^0 Change
Tjrpe of Industry
Hov# 1 ^ 3 Where Greatest
N O T # 29UU
Wartime Employment
Mfg, E m p l ^ Increase Occurred
(Transportation Equip#
(Electrical Machinery

Boston Area

Providence Area

-11%

•555S

Transportation Equips

Eartf03rd Area

(Transportation Squip#
(Machinery

Springfield Area

(Ordnance & Accessories
(Machinery

Worcester Area

-113C

Pall River Area
* This was a month near the peak of war production.
$ Includes employment in government arsenals and navy yards•
(a) Exclusive of Cambridge, Lynn and Somerville#
(b) Cambridge#
(c) Lynn*
(d) Somerville*
(e) P a H River.
(f) New Bedford*
Source: U # S # Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics*




(Machinery
(Stone,Clay & Glass Prod*
Machinery

Table 3
DISTRIBUTION OP ESITLOY1IEHT BY LEADING INDUSTRY GROUPS, 9^
Principal Centers of Population in the Boston Federal Reserve District

45 Principal Centers
Arranged i n Order o f
Total Employment

Number
Employed
in
Thousands

Percentage of Total Employed*
ISg.

ITrade

!Prof»1. j Pers»l. Transp.
1 Serv. I Serv, & TJtil

I
TOTAL - 2i«5 AREAS

2,294.2

•p METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS
Boston
Providence
Hartford-New B r i t a i n
Springfield-Holyoke
New HaVon
Lowell-Lawrenoe-Haverhill
Woroester
P a l l River-New Bedford
Waterbury-Naugatucl#(a)
Portland Aree#("b)
Manoh©8ter#(c)

2f00%7
827.5
264.3
204.0

34 SMALLER AREAS
Lewiston-Auburn
Pitohbur g-Leon&nster
Pittsfield(liass.)
Adams-N. Adams
Nashua
Taunton
Torrington
New London
Bangor
Burlington
Concord(N. E.)
Norwioh(Conn. )
Biddeford
Gardner (Mass , )



146.1
120.9
120.9
107.9
100.8

48.0
37.0
28 A.
288.5

24.3
23.9
18.1

14.2
13.8
11.8
11.5
11.4
10.4
9.7

9.4
8.8

8.4
7.7

.

i

39.5$ ! 18.5$
8.9^ 1 8.15&
i
"
1
9.0/J 1 __8A
I 18.8^
28.3 j 21.7 ! 10.5 P9X^
46.8 ! 16.9 ! 7.2 I 7.2
6.9
43.5 ! 15.2 I 7.9
7.6
41.5 j 18.0 ' 9.4
39.0 i 17.9 ! 9.7
7.7
6.2
52.6 ! 15.4
7.3
! 16.2
6.8
45.9
9.4
6.0 !
6.0
54.2 ! 15.4
6.2
60.I
i 14.2
5.3
.21.3 1 26.0 1
9.0
10.7
6.7
46.8 1 18.5 • 7.0
[ • • • ' • • "

•

46.4,1 16.5^
55.7 : Hjl6
53:5 i 15.2
47.4
17.4
60.7

12.8.
13.6
4?,4 15.9
12.8
64.0
2 2 . 6 > 19.1
.
15.2 j 26.6
22.5 ! 25.3
17.8 ! 17.4
39.3 i 20.2
64.7 ! 12.6
60.7 | 11.8

'

•

•

sap
6.7 •
8.2 •.
5.8
6.8
10.6 >
12.5

14.7

18.0
9.7
5.0
7.8
(Continuod

6^L

7.9
4.8
3.7
5.6
8.4

8.C&S.

!

6.3

i
i

7.1
5.6
6.5
7.0

4.4
9.9

.

4.1
3.9 3.8

3.5

3,3

..

5.5
2.8

8.4
3.8
3.0
2.1

4.3 i
4.1 !

4.7
3.4

3..S5*

2.7

11.4 ;

11.0
14.3
12.7
6.7 !
;
9.9
9.5 1
8.7
4.9 i
2.5 !
5.6
:
6.9
3.5 I
on noxt pago)

i

2.7

;

3.4 I

3.7
5.7

!
!

4.2

i

5.7
6.4

|
i

3.1
2.2

•'
1

4.4

|

5.1
4.5
3M
3.5
3.1
3.0

2.4
3.4
4.0
3.8
2.3
1.3
1.6

6.5

5.2
6.9
6..?
6.5
5.4
6.8
6.0
2:2
5.7
5.0

3.5

.

^ .do

5.5^
5^|.
. 5.7

JT3

1.8
3.8
l»5
1.6
1.9
1*5

'
i
!
|
1
i

3.1
2.9

: 2.4
: 6.9

235

" -3.3. 1
3.5 '
3.5 !
2.6 i

7.6 •

:
'
!
:

2.9
1.7
2.0

4.3

11.4
5.0

3.4

4.6
3,3

4.3

3.9

6.3S

4.7

5.1

4.9
4.9

Finance
Etc.

4.3^

' 4 . 9

4.7

5.755
"3.'5

1

:

'

8J£»

4.8
. 9.7

6.3!

Constr.

2^4
!

2.7
1.8
2.2
3.3
i."9

.

5.0

: 5.3

4.4
4.9

!

4.2

14.5
4.2
4.1

1 4.7
{ 8.4
! 5.8

10.2
3.9
1.8

4.6

1.7

7.7
}

3.4

1 3.8

Table 5
(Continued)

k5 Principal Centers
Arranged in Order of
Total Eiaployrnent
3k SMALLER AREAS (Continued)
Augusta
Southbridge
T/aterville
Greenfield
Rutland
Dover (N# H # )
Berlin(N# H # )
Hilford(Mass*)
Keene
Portsmouth
Willimantic
Webster
Claremont
Laconia
Rochester
Athol
Plymouth
Bath

Barre(Vt^)
Westerly

Percentage of Total Employed*

Number
Employed

Trade 1 Pro*11.1Pers'I.j Transp.I
! Serv. j Serv. } & Util.}

Thousands

I Finance i
'} Etc. ] G o v

: All
j Other**

I

7.4
7.1
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.8

5.7
5.6
5.3
5.3
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.0

4.o
3.8

69.6
37.4
30.3
18.4
45.9
52.9
58.6
36.7
39.8

47.4

66.5
54.0
39.2
54.0
59.3
38.4
54.2
34.3
42.3

10.2
18.2
19.8
24.1
17.5
15.2
13.7
18.6
18.2
17.5
12.3
14.7
19.0
13.7
13.7
18.8
34.3
23.0
16.0

j

3.8
10.6
8.7

io.4
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.9
7.2
8.6

4.6
5.1
7.8

6.4
4.4
6.8

6.4

7.1

7.5

9.3?$

4.4
10.0
10.5
11.7
7.4
8.5
5.9
9.7
9.3
7.7

4.4

8.2
9.4
8.3
'6.3
9.3
9.2
10.3
9.2

1.9
10.5
11.9
17.1
6.2

4.3
4.2
6.4
6.9
5.6
3.8
4.1
4.3
3.5
4.3

k.7%
3.5
3.4
4.6
3.8
5.2
3.0
2.5
6.1

3

1.3
2.2
2.6
3.8
2.0
1.1

2,0

4.5
3.9

4.6
2.4

4.5
7.3

1.5
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.4
2.4
1.8
3.6
2.4

2.8
3.1
5.5
3.5
3.3
5.8
2.6

2.2

12.:$

1.3
2.5

4.4
3.5
2.5
3.1
1.8

2.2

5.5
2.4
1.2
1.9

4.9
i;8
1.9

4.6
3.3
4.3
2.5

6.7^
4.0
5.2
7.2
7.2
6.5

4.9
4.5
7.8

6.2

4.7
2.9

7.3
6.6
6.4
6.2
9.6

4.6
7.1
3.7

* Based upon industrial classifications of employed workers.
** Includes agriculture; forestry & fishing; mining; business- services; and miscellaneous not reported separately.
$ Metropolitan district data not available.
(a) Waterbury and Haugatuck.
(b) Portland, South Portland and Westbrook.
(c) Manchester city only.
Source: U. S # Census of Population, 19i+0#



Table h
DISTRIBUTION OP EHPUJYKEffT BY SOCIAJWSCOHOJUC (21OUPS 19i|.O
Principal Centers of Population i n t h e Boston Federal Reserve D i s t r i c t

h5 Principal Centers
Arranged in Order of
Total Employment

Percentaee of Total Enroloved*
Head Ifor leers
Hand Workers
in
Pro Vs
|Skilled
1
P -!Clerical
Thousands Total! FrofesJr '*grsc | Sales Total fWorkers Sesd. ,
| sional i
i
skillled

Htuaber
Employed

I

61. *&

8.
-2.QD5JL
1. Boston
2. Providenoe

5. Hartford-New Britain
4. Springfield-Holyoke

264.3

204.0

146.1
5. New Kaven
120.9
6. Lowell-Lawrenoe-Havcrhi 1 120.9
7. Worcester
107.9
8. Pall River-New Bedford
100*8
9. Waterbury-Haugatuo!#(a)
48.0
10. Portland Area#(b)
37.0
1.1 ^

3k.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20."
21.
22.
23.
24.

-J3JSL
10.3

45.2
33.5
39.0

7.1
7.9

3&.o

38.4
29.3
26.1 \\
31.5
44.6
32.6

f

8.5

8.7

6.7
8.8

5.7
7.1
8.5
6.5

ASEAS

Lewiston-Aubxirn
FitoKburg-Leominster
Pittsfield(liass.)
Adams-North Adams
Nashua
Taunton
Torrington
New London
Bangor
Btirlington
Conoord(N. H.)
Norwich(Conn.)
Biddeford




(

24.3
23.9
18.1
14.2
13.8
11.8
11.5

nJk

10.4

9.7
9.4
8.8
8.4
1 Jl

28^9
30.7
40.1
25.2

2?;2
32.7
27.3
37^9

49.0
49.5
45^6
34,6

5.6
6.7

11.0

5.9
6.1
7.9

9.5
84t
8.4

9.2
7.7
7.7
7.0
6.6
10.7
7-9
BL&LJ
7.3
7.6
8.0

25.4
18.0
22.7
20.1
20.5
14.9
19.4
13.4
17.8
25.4
18.2
1L..0
21.1
13.0
14.0
16.2
15.0
I6.4
25.0

6.3
7.1
8."6
7.2
10.3
11.9
25.5
13.1
13.7
23.0
12.1
10.9
19.0
7.0
10.5
4.7 I
8.6
6 Q
(Continued 5.4next page)
on
7.6

I'}

54.8
66.5
61.0
62.0
61.6
70.7
68.6
73.9
68.5
55
67 J

3&M
30.5
42,8
34.0
36.5
34.8
50.4
37.7
52.8
38.4
32.1

unskilled

Tablo 4
(Continued)
3
Percentage of Total Employed*
Number
Head Workers
Hand Workers
45 Principal Centers
l
i
Employed
j[Skilled
Arranged in Order of
Semi- . i U n \ PtVi'PAS— Prop s. Clerical
i_
Total
Total Workers
Total Employment
xn
Sales
skilled skilled
1 sional | Mgrs.
Etc.
Etc,
:
\ Etc.
Thousands
;
!
i
!
!
3k SMALLER AREAS(Continued)
59.2^ 9.1JS
35.6£ ! 14^5^
26. Augusta
ko.&%\1 8.6<£ : 9.5£ i 22.7* 72.8 23.6
7.4
27.2 !! 5.0
27. Southbridge
! 8.7
4o.5
7.1
6.5 ! 15.7
9.6
62.5 12.1
28. Waterville
6.2
18.7
37.5 I! 9.2
1 12^7 •
37:7
i.2.6 1! 9.8
11.2 ' 21.6
26^
29. Greenfield
6.0
57.4 20.3
; ioJk
26.3
30. Rutland
46.9 !1 10.1
10.5
5.8
53.1 16.O • 22.7
3l."3 !I 5.7
10.2
68^2 13.8
1*2.6
31. Dover (N. H.)
11.3
15.9
5.8
7*
5
14.6
70.0 i4.i
32. Berlin(U. H.)
31.6
5.7
3o."o j! 7.9
24;5
33. Milford(lfess.)
Il4.2
29.6 !I 6.9
5.6
70.4 l6Jt
9.8
15.5
io;6
62.6 13.7
34. Keone
18.7
37.4 !! 8.1
35.6
5.3
13.3
35. Portsmouth
12.1
21.7
9.7 • 17.0
64.7
35.3 i ! 8.6
30.9
5.3
15.6
31.2 |i 7.1
68.8 10.1
46.1
36. Willimantio
5.0
, 12.6
8.5
21.8 1! 4.4
12.2
78.2 11.1
37. Yfebster
60.5
4.9
6."6
5.2
14.8
31.2 !! 6.4
10.0
68.8 16.5
4o.5
38* Claremont
4.8
11.8
18.5
10.1
17.8
39. Laconia
13.0
4.7
36.7 1 8.1
63.3
32.5
73.0 10*1
4o« Rochester
4.6
13.'6
27.0 I; 5.4
9.5 I 12.1
49.3
27.8 }I 4.9
72.2 13.2
47.6
4 l . Athol
4.6
14.6
8.5
n.4
10.6
16.5
4 2 . Plymouth
4.6
16.9
34.1 f 6.6
65.9 10.7
38.7
14.6
69.6 31.5
26.0
12.1
4 3 . Bath
8.3
30.4 ! 7.5
4*o
22.8
20.6
4.0
12.3
4 4 . Barre(Vt.)
i»4.9 ! 8.7
13.4
55.1 22.2
32.8 | 8.1 ; 10.4
67.2 15.6
4o.2
45. Westerly
3.8
14.3
n.4
i i<l

VX

wO^

i

* Based upon occupational classifications of employed workers#
# Metropolitan district data not available#
(a) Waterbury and Haugatuck^
(b) Portland, South Portland and Westbrook#
(c) Manchester city only#

Source? Vc S. Corsun of Population,