The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
862d SeiioiT3}
JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT
STUDY PAPER NO. 23
THE STRUCTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL
LABOR SURPLUS
BY TH E
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
M A T E R IA LS PREPA RED IN C O N N E C T IO N W IT H T H E
STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT, GROWTH, AND
PRICE LEVELS
FO R CO N SID ERATIO N B Y T H E
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JANUARY 30, 1960
Printed for the use of the Joint Eoonomic Committee
U N ITE D
STATES
G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F I C E
60439
W A S H IN G T O N : 1960
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D .O . • Price 15 cents
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
(Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.)
P AUL H . DOUGLAS, Illinois, Chairman
W R IG H T P A T M A N , Texas, Vice Chairman
SEN ATE
HOUSE OF R EPR E SEN TA TIVE S
JOHN SPAR K M A N , Alabama
J. W IL L IA M F U LB RIG H T, Arkansas
JOSEPH C. O’M A H O N E Y , Wyoming
JOHN F. K E N N E D Y , Massachusetts
PRESCO TT BUSH, Connecticut
JOHN M AR SH AL L B U I LER, Maryland
JACOB K . JAVITS, New York
Stu d y
of
E
m ploym ent,
R ICH AR D BO LLIN G , Missouri
H A L E BOGGS, Louisiana
H E N R Y S. REUSS, Wisconsin
F R A N K M . CO FFIN , Maine
T H O M AS B. CU R TIS, Missouri
C L AR EN C E E. K IL B U R N , New York
W IL L IA M B. W ID N A L L , New Jersey
G row th,
and
P r ic e L e v e l s
(Pursuant to S. Con. Res. 13,86th Cong., 1st sess.)
Otto Eckstein, Technical Director
John W. Lehman, Administrative Officer
James W. Knowles, Special Economic Counsel
This i part of a series ofpapers being prepared for consideration
s
by the Joint Economic Committee in connection with i s
t
“Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels.” The com
mittee and the committee s a f neither approve nor disapprove
tf
of the findings of the individual authors.
m
LETTERS
OF
T R A N S M IT T A L
Jan u ary
30, 1960.
To Members oj the Joint Economic Committee:
Submitted herewith for the consideration of the members of the
Joint Economic Committee and others is Study Paper No. 23 “the
Structure of Unemployment in Areas of Substantial Labor Surplus.”
This is among the number of subjects which the Joint Economic
Committee requested individual scholars to examine and report on
in connection with the committee’s study of “Employment, Growth,
and Price Levels.”
The findings are entirely those of the authors, and the committee
and the committee staff indicate neither approval nor disapproval by
this publication.
P a u l
H .
D o u g la s ,
Chairman, Joint Economic Committee.
U.S.
D e p a rtm e n t
B u re a u
o f Lab or,
of L ab o r
S t a t is tic s ,
Washington, D.C., January 24,1960 .
Hon. P a u l H.
U.S. S e n a t e ,
D o u g la s ,
Washington, D.C .
D e a r S e n a t o r D o u g l a s : I transmit herewith the report, “The
Structure of Unemployment in Areas of Labor Surplus,” which was
prepared at your request by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This
supplements the report, “The Extent and Nature of Frictional
Unemployment,” also prepared by the Bureau and published by the
Joint Economic Committee as Study Paper No. 6.
The present report provides data on the personal, occupational, and
industrial characteristics of the employed and unemployed in areas of
labor surplus (including chronically depressed areas) and other areas.
Data presented in this report are, in many cases, the result of special
retabulations and have never been available before.
This report was compiled in the Bureau’s Division of Manpower
and Employment Statistics, Harold Goldstein, Chief, and prepared
under the direction of Joseph S. Zeisel.
Sincerely yours,
E w an
C la g u e ,
Commissioner oj Labor Statistics.
VI
LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL
Ja n u a r y 24, 1960.
Hon.
P a u l
H.
D o u g la s ,
Chairman, Joint Economic Committee,
U.S. Senatey Washington, D.C.
D ear Senator D ouglas: Transmitted herewith is one of the
series of papers prepared for the study of “ Employment, Growth,
and Price Levels” by outside consultants and members of the staff.
This paper was prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor.
All papers are presented as prepared by the authors.
O t t o E c k s t e in ,
Technical Director,
Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels.
C O N T E N T S
THE STRUCTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF
SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Part I__________________________________________________________________
Unemployment____________________________________________________
Personal characteristics of the unemployed-------------------------------Industry and occupation of latest job held by the unemployed___
Duration of unemployment____________________________________
Employment_______________________________________________________
Industry and occupation_______________________________________
Hours of work_________________________________________________
Population and labor force_________________________________________
Appendix to part I ________________________________________________
List of areas included in each class_____________________________
Sampling errors for estimates of characteristics of the labor force
from the M LRF sample_____________________________________
Standard error of level of estimates____________________________
Standard errors of percentages_________________________________
Part II_________________________________________________________________
Introduction_______________________________________________________
Age, sex, and marital status________________________________________
Industry and occupation___________________________________________
Exhaustions, duration, and spells of insured unemployment_________
Appendix to part I I ________________________________________________
Sampling errors for estimates of characteristics of the insured un
employed from the 0.2 percent sample_______________________
The approximate sampling error in percentage terms------------------
Page
4
6
7
8
11
13
13
14
15
20
20
21
22
22
22
22
24
25
27
34
34
34
C harts
Chart 1. Industrial composition of the unemployed, by loan market area
grouping: Spring 1959________________________________________________
Chart 2. Long-term and short-term unemployed, by labor market area
grouping: Spring 1959________________________________________________
Chart 3. Labor force participation rates for men by age, by labor market
area grouping: Spring 1959___________________________________________
Chart 4. Labor force participation rates for women by age, by labor market
area grouping: Spring 1959___________________________________________
Chart 5. Occupational distribution of the insured unemployed in distressed
and other areas: July 1956 to June 1957______________________________
10
12
18
19
33
T ables
Table 1. Unemployment by age and sex, by labor market area class,
spring 1959________________ ______ ___________________________________
Table 2. Unemployment by marital status, color, and sex, labor market
area class, spring 1959________________________________________________
Table 3. Unemployment by industry of last job, labor market area class,
spring 1959__________________________________________________________
Table 4. Unemployment by occupation group, by labor market area class,
spring 1959__________________________________________________________
Table 5. Unemployment, by duration, by labor market area class, spring
1959___________________ _____________________________________________
Table 6. Eemployment by industry group, by labor market area class,
spring 1959__________________________________________________________
vn
7
8
9
11
13
13
Vm
CONTENTS
Table 7. Employment by occupation group, by labor market area class,
spring 1959__________________________________________________________
Table 8. Employment in nonfarm industries by hours of work, by labor
market area class, spring 1959________________________________________
Table 9. Civilian noninstitutional population by age and sex, by labor
market area class, spring 1959________________________________________
Table 10. Labor force status by age and sex, by labor market area class,
spring 1959__________________________________________________________
Table 11. Insured unemployment by type of area, by age, sex, and marital
status, July 1956 to June 1957________________________________________
Table 12. Insured unemployment by type of area, by industry, July 1956
to June 1957_________________________________________________________
Table 13. Insured unemployment by type of area, by occupation, July
1956 to June 1957____________________________________________________
Table 14. Duration and spells of insured unemployment by type of area,
by age, sex, and marital status, July 1956 to June 1957________________
Table 15. Duration and spells of insured unemployment by type of area,
by industry, July 1956 to June 1957__________________________________
Table 16. Duration and spells of insured unemployment by type of area, by
occupation, July 1956 to June 1957___________________________________
Page
14
15
15
17
25
26
27
28
30
31
STU D Y
PAPER
N O . 23
THE STRUCTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS
OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS *
The overall level of unemployment is one of the most critical indi
cators of the state of the American economy. In recent years,
however, there has been growing concern not only with the overall
level but also with the anatomy of unemployment. Considerable
attention has been given to the reasons for unemployment and the
characteristics of the unemployed in periods of generally high levels
of economic activity as well as during periods of recession.
Although recessions and depressions have been the major cause of
high unemployment, it has been generally accepted that some degree
of unemployment is unavoidable in a free market economy even in
periods of high or “full” employment. The nature and extent of this
frictional unemployment, as it has been called, was explored in a
previous study in this series by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Fric
tional unemployment, which is the direct result of seasonal fluctuations
in employment, movement into and out of the labor force and the very
high rate of job mobility in the United States, is generally short-term.
In addition, however, in prosperity as well as recession, there has
been a substantial degree of long-term unemployment associated with
secular declines in occupations, industries, and areas, reflecting the
development of new products, changing tastes, industrial productivity
developments, and so forth—often called structural unemployment.
This is a particularly virulent form of unemployment, not only because
of the economic, social, and emotional implications for the individual,
but also because, by its nature, structural unemployment is frequently
concentrated geographically, affecting the jobs and incomes of persons
not immediately connected with the distressed industry.
Thus, for example, as the decline in demand for coal closed mines in
West Virginia and other areas, and the decline of the New England
textile industry closed factories in that area, large numbers of workers
were laid off. Because these industries were the dominant employers
in their areas, those laid off found few alternative job opportunities.
Moreover, what few job openings did arise were often at lower paid,
less skilled trades. With the resulting decline in income in these areas,
service, construction, and other industries often suffered declines.
The lack of employment opportunities has resulted in many of the
young and more mobile workers leaving these areas while older workers
with family responsibilities, long personal associations, and owning
homes, have tended to stay on, exhausting their unemployment insur
ance eligibility and facing little opportunity for reemployment.
*By Joseph S. Zeisel and Robert L. Stein.
1 Study Paper No. 6, “ The Extent and Nature of Frictional Unemployment/’ U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 19,1959.
1
5 0 4 3 9 — 60 --------2
2
U NEM PLOYM ENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Moreover, these factors often create an atmosphere that is not con
ducive to investment by new industries. Thus, the effect of a domi
nant employer moving out, or an industry declining, often proliferates
throughout an area, and is felt by virtually the entire community.
Public policy decisions on the necessity for ameliorative action, as
well as on the types of action, require as many facts as possible on the
extent and the nature of the problem of depressed area unemployment.
A recent report by the Department of Labor summarizes a great deal
of the relevant information.2
The present study is supplementary to the earlier one on frictional
unemployment and deals with one serious aspect of frictional unem
ployment—that associated with depressed areas. Like the earlier
report, it attempts to enhance our understanding of the unemployment
problem by providing information not previously available, in this
case for very different kinds of labor market areas. As in the previous
study, an attempt has been made to exploit more fully data already
collected in the monthly labor force survey. In addition, the present
study also uses data from a sample survey of unemployment insurance
claimants which was in operation in 1956 and 1957. It must be em
phasized, however, that these surveys are being used for purposes not
contemplated in their original design. Because the results are subject
to a number of limitations, this study must be regarded as experi
mental rather than as a definitive work in the field of depressed area
unemployment.
Part I of the study is based on a special retabulation of data com
piled from the sample used for the Monthly Report on the Labor
Force (MRLF). The original data were collected in April and May
1959. It was recognized that this would create special problems of
interpretation because recovery from the 1957-58 recession was not
yet complete last spring, with unemployment still at 5 percent of the
civilian labor force. Because of technical difficulties, however, it
was not possible to retabulate the MRLF for the full employment
period of 1955-57, the period of reference for the previous analyses of
frictional unemployment. (In part, this gap was filled by data from
the unemployment insurance sample, which did cover the period from
July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957.)
The MRLF data for the spring of 1959 (separate data for April
and May were averaged, thus reducing sampling variability by about
20 percent) were tabulated by several groupings of major labor
market areas as defined and classified by the Bureau of Employment
Security. These can be described as follows:
Class 1—Areas of continued tight, or balanced, labor supplydemand relationships.
Class 2—Areas of tight or balanced labor supply before the
recession, characterized by a substantial rise in unemployment
during the recession, but recovery thereafter.
Class 3—Areas of either chronic labor surplus, or which be
came areas of substantial labor surplus during the recent reces
sion and had not recovered as of the spring of 1959. These areas
were still classed as D, E, or F in May 1959.3
a U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, “ Chronic Labor Surplus Areas, Experi
ence and Outlook/' July 1959.
* For a description of the criteria used in area classification, see U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Em
ployment Security, “ The Labor Market and Employment Security,” December 1959 (p. 5).
UNEM PLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
3
Included in class 3 were 19 areas that may be designated as
chronically depressed areas. These were places classified by BES
as D, E, or F throughout 1957, 1958, and the first half of 1959.
This subgroup (known as class 3B) had 3 million in its civilian popu
lation of working age, 10 percent of the total class 3 population.
Detroit was not included in class 3B because, with the relatively small
MRLF sample in chronically depressed areas, its characteristics would
have dominated the overall pattern. The sample in these areas
was not large enough to yield separate statistics, except in the case
of a few items such as labor force participation rates. Here again,
the unemployment insurance (XJI) data were of considerable help
because there was no problem of showing separate figures for chron
ically depressed areas as distinguished from other areas of substantial
labor surplus.
One unique advantage of part I lies in its presentation of kinds of
data not elsewhere obtainable, as will be indicated later. The utility
of this study could be greatly enhanced by the accumulation of similar
data for other periods, especially 1955-57, so that the effects of the
recession would not be reflected, and so that additional information
could be shown for areas with a chronic labor surplus.
Part II of this study is based on tabulations from a sample of
unemployment insurance claimants in 1956 and 1957. The time
reference is consistent with that used in Study Paper No. 6. More
over, this sample was large enough (two-tenths of 1 percent) to permit
publication of separate data for chronically depressed areas. Accord
ing to the definitions used, 21 major labor market areas and 70 smaller
areas were identified as chronically depressed.
These data relate to the total number of different persons who had
at least one spell of insured unemployment between July 1956 and
June 1957. The unemployment experience of the same individuals
has been traced over that 12-month period, and statistics have been
presented on duration and spells of insured unemployment as well as
the extent of exhaustions.
The major limitation of these figures is that they are subject to
non-economic influences, such as the legal restrictions on eligibility.
This problem is especially acute for depressed areas because there may
be a large pool of “ chronic exhaustees,” that is, persons who had used
up their benefits and never became reemployed long enough to earn
new benefit rights.
Despite the limitations of both sets of data described above, a
number of significant findings have emerged from these studies:
1. Unemployment in chronically depressed areas accounted for at
least one-fifth of total unemployment in the full-employment period
of 1956-57. Not all the unemployment in chronically depressed
areas was “structural,” i.e., the result of long-term changes in the
economy. Some of it was clearly the result of short-term frictional
situations. If the rate of unemployment in these areas could have
been reduced to the national average, the jobless total would have
been roughly a quarter of a million lower at that time.
2. The characteristics of the unemployed in chronically depressed
and other areas of substantial labor surplus indicated that unem
ployment had much more serious welfare implications in those areas
than elsewhere.
4
U NEM PLOYM ENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
(а) The rate of long-term unemployment (15 weeks or longer)
in chronically depressed and other areas of substantial labor
surplus was much higher than that of other areas. The differences
were especially sharp in the proportions jobless for one-half year
or longer (26 percent of the unemployed in labor-surplus areas,
13 percent in other areas).
(б) Unemployment in areas of substantial labor surplus was
concentrated to a greater extent among adult men, especially
heads of families. This finding was borne out in both parts of the
study.
(c) Both studies also showed that substantially larger propor
tions of the unemployed in chronically depressed and other areas
of substantial labor surplus were blue-collar workers (especially
semiskilled) previously employed in manufacturing. The plight
of such workers is especially difficult because they are often not
equipped in terms of skill to fill jobs in occupations where
vacancies are most likely to exist (e.g., professional, technical,
secretarial, service.) As a result, they may accept relatively
unskilled jobs at lower pay.
3. Unemployment in areas of substantial labor surplus not only
affects the dominant industries in those areas but also spreads to
other components of the economy. Unemployment rates were much
higher in hard goods manufacturing industries in areas of substantial
labor surplus than in other areas, and they were also significantly
higher in construction, transportation, and trade.
4. The extent of labor force participation among several age-sex
groups in the population differed sharply as between chronically de
pressed areas and other areas but the differences were minor for men
in the principal working ages (25-64). The main differences were
as follows :
(a) There was a lower labor force rate among young men
under 25 in chronically depressed areas than in class 1 areas.
However, nearly all those not in the labor force were in school,
suggesting that part-time jobs were less plentiful in depressed
areas and many of these young persons probably just did not
look for work.
(b) In the chronically depressed areas, the worker rate for
men 65 and over was lower than in class 1 areas but the difference
was slight.
(c) The labor force rates for women showed the opposite pic
ture, higher rates for women in chronically depressed areas than
in all other areas among young women 20 to 24 and those in the
35 to 64 age group. Although this pattern probably reflected
the greater need for supplementary family earners in depressed
areas, to some extent it may have been a result of the types of
industries located in these areas (e.g., textiles and other nondur
able goods plants), which traditionally have employed many
women.
P a rt
I
Part I of this study of areas with a substantial labor surplus is
based on data compiled from the sample used for the Monthly Report
on the Labor Force.4 The MRLF sample was designed to yield
* For a brief description of this source, see the explanatory notes in “ Employment and Earnings.” U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington 25, D .C .
UNEM PLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
5
reliable national estimates, and its use as a source for data by types of
areas should be recognized as tentative and exploratory. This retabu
lation does not provide statistically significant data for individual
areas, but does provide valuable data, never previously available, by
broad groups of areas. Moreover, the results are illustrative of the
kinds of information potentially available from this source for labor
market areas. Before the direct sample survey approach could be
used widely for areas below the national level, however, the sample
would probably have to be redesigned and appreciably enlarged.
Moreover, in chronically depressed areas, the scope of the inquiry
itself might have to be expanded in order to reveal the full dimensions
of manpower underutilization.
Despite these and other limitations, the MRLF data for April and
May 1959 were retabulated by several groupings of major labor mar
ket areas. The data made available from these special tabulations
are valuable for two reasons:
1. There are some types of information available from the labor
force surveys that cannot be obtained directly from other sources such
as: (a) The personal characteristics of the population, of the labor
force, and of the employed and unemployed as well as more detailed
subgroupings within the labor force; (6) identification of the occupa
tions and industrial attachments of both the employed and the unem
ployed (last job held) from the same primary source; (c) distributions
by hours of work for the employed and by duration of unemployment
for the unemployed.
2. The employment, unemployment, and labor force data for areas
are consistent with the national figures in terms of concepts and collec
tion methods. Although subject to the usual field survey problems
of sampling variability and response error (especially in cases of
persons with marginal attachment to the labor force), the data are
not subject to the special problems connected with administrative
statistics.
Because of time and cost limitations, it was possible to tabulate,
process, and analyze data only for one specific period, the spring of
1959. Separate data were obtained for April and May and were then
averaged in order to increase the reliability of the results. Specific
estimated variances are not available for these data per se, but the
more general tables of sampling error published for MRLF data are
reasonably satisfactory approximations. (See p. 22 of this study.)
The basic plan for this pilot study was as follows:
1.
The 145 major labor market areas in the continental United
States classified by the Bureau of Employment Security were grouped
into three categories. The criteria used were:
Class 1.—Areas whose classification remained at A, B, or C
from January 1957 to May 1959; i.e., areas with a consistently
tight or balanced labor supply-demand situation.
Class 2.—Areas whose classification fell to D, E, or F after the
first quarter of 1957 but returned to C or better by May 1959;
i.e., areas with a substantial labor surplus during the recession,
but which showed recovery in 1959.
Class 3.—Areas whose classification fell to D, E, or F after the
first quarter of 1957 and were still D or worse in May 1959; and
areas whose classification was D or worse throughout the period
6
UNEM PLOYM ENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
January 1957 to May 1959; i.e., areas of substantial labor surplus
and chronically depressed areas.6
2.
The MRLF data were tabulated for each labor market area
group for the spring of 1959.
The 145 major labor-market areas classified by BES account for
nearly 60 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population 14 years
and over in the continental United States. Of these areas, 115 are in
the MRLF sample, including all of the 100 largest areas. The data
for the three groupings were tabulated separately, and the results were
appropriately weighted to reflect the 30 labor-market areas not in the
sample.
The main focus of the study is on class 3 areas (areas of substantial
labor surplus). About one-third of these areas may be characterized
as chronically depressed; the rest as cyclically affected and showing
lagging recovery. It is probably too early to tell whether the 1957-58
downturn has added to the list of chronically depressed areas.
Class 3 areas may be described as follows:
(1) They comprise 57 of the 145 major labor-market areas.
(2) The 57 areas included 19 which were chronically depressed.6
(3) The remaining 38 were areas which might be described as
having substantial labor surpluses because of the business down
turn. Most of these fell as low as D in the first quarter of 1958.
Altogether, about half the areas in class 3 were still classified D, E,
or F in November 1959. Most of this group had experienced a sub
stantial labor surplus for at least 2 years, some of them for 3 years or
more.
The major substantive findings of the present study are described
below. For most purposes, comparisons are drawn between class 3
areas and class 1 areas in order to delineate the significant differences
as sharply as possible. The unemployment rate was the same in
class 2 as in class 1 areas and in a number of other respects class 2 area
characteristics closely resembled those of class 1 areas.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Class 3 areas accounted for 1.1 million or nearly one-third of total
unemployment in the spring of 1959 although they represented only
one-fourth of the Nation’s population and labor force. As a group,
their rate of unemployment, based on direct surveys of the labor force,
was 6.3 percent as compared with 4.9 percent in class 1 and class 2
areas, each of which included a little over 500,000 jobless workers.
Significant qualitative differences in the characteristics of the unem
ployed were revealed among the groups. Unemployment in class 3
areas showed greater concentration among regular labor force mem
bers, a higher proportion of factory operatives and other industrial
workers, and a much higher incidence of long-term unemployment.
8 Unfortunately, the scope of the study had to be curtailed from its original design, as it was determined
that the sample was not large enough to yield sufficiently reliable estimates separately for chronically de
pressed areas. This does not mean that such areas aie not adequately represented in the national sample,
but only that separate figures for these areas cannot be obtained. It was necessary, therefore, to combine
such areas with areas whose labor surplus had its origins in the 1957-58 recession and to present the final
results in terms of three area groupings rather than four. Moreover, as noted earlier, because of time and
cost factors, the data had to be confined to 1959 rather than to each of the 3 years 1957, 1958, and 1959 as
originally planned. Thus, the final product is much more limited than its original outline, but it provides
some useful information not previously available and opens the door to further research in this field.
* For a detailed analysis, area by area, see the report “ Chronic Labor Surplus Areas, Experience and
Outlook,” op. cit.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
7
Personal characteristics oj the unemployed
In areas of substantial labor surplus, a larger proportion of the
unemployed were men between the ages of 25 and 64 (45 percent in
class 3, 36 percent in class 1; see table 1). Men in these age groups
also accounted for a slightly larger proportion of the labor force in
class 3 than in class 1. More important, however, was the much
higher unemployment rates for adult men, especially those in the
25- to 34-year age group.
A larger proportion of the unemployed in class 1 areas, on the other
hand, were teenagers (25 percent, as compared with 16 percent).
Such unemployment is more likely to be of short duration and is less
serious in other respects since teenagers seldom have dependents, and
in fact may still be largely dependent on their parents. The unem
ployment rate for teenagers was the same in class 1 as in class 3 areas,
a little over 17 percent. It is likely, however, that teenager unem
ployment in class 1 areas included a higher proportion of casual
jobseekers who had entered the labor market in response to a favorable
job situation.
T a b l e 1.— Unemployment by age and sex} by labor market area class, spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force surveyl
Number of unemployed
(thousands)
Unemployment rate
(percent)
Percent distribution
Age and sex
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
579
524
1,130
4.9
4.9
6.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
356
333
717
4.7
4.6
6.0
61.5
63.5
63.5
14 to 19 years......................
20 to 24 years.......................
25 to 34 years------------------35 to 44 years .......................
45 to 54 years.......................
55 to 64 years.......................
65 years and over................
84
45
63
54
50
43
18
62
43
72
53
46
40
17
99
76
171
128
115
95
32
17.8
6.6
3.4
2.9
3.3
4.5
5.6
15.2
7.1
4.1
3.0
3.2
4.2
5.7
17.1
8.6
6.2
4.3
4.7
5.5
6.0
14.5
7.8
10.9
9.3
8.6
7.4
3.1
11.8
8.2
13.7
10.1
8.8
7.6
3.2
8.8
6.7
15.1
11.3
10.2
8.4
2.8
Female.....................................
224
I5T
413~
5.4
5.5
38.7
36.5
36.5
14 to 19 years......................
20 to 24 years.......................
25 to 34 years.......................
35 to 44 years.......................
45 to 54 years................. —
55 to 64 years.......................
65 years and over................
58
34
42
40
27
20
3
39
18
37
40
34
19
5
81
61
61
70
95
35
15
17.2
7.3
4.8
4.5
2.9
4.0
2.2
12.1
4.8
5.8
5.2
4.3
4.3
4.0
17.6
8.4
5.9
4.8
7.0
4.7
6.9
10.0
5.9
7.3
6.9
4.7
3.5
.5
7.4
3.4
7.1
7.6
6.5
3.6
1.0
7.2
5.4
5.4
6.2
8.4
3.1
1.3
211
509
3.4
3.6
5.1
36.2
40.2
45.0
Total..............................
Male, 25 to 64 years...............
^10
<uT
Married women represented a higher proportion of the unemployed
in class 1 than in class 3, while married men accounted for a smaller
proportion (table 2). Although these differences were slight, they
were consistent with the pattern of a more serious kind of unemploy
ment problem in class 3 areas.
Unemployment rates for nonwhite workers were much higher than
for white workers in all three area groups (about 2}{ to 3 times as
high among men) and unemployment rates were higher in class 3 areas
than in class 1 areas for both whites and nonwhites. Interestingly,
however, the class 1-class 3 difference seemed to be a little sharper
for white than for nonwhite workers, probably reflecting (among other
things) a difference in industry and occupation distribution.
8
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
T a b l e 2 . — Unemployment by marital status, color, and sex, labor market area class,
spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey!
Number of unemployed
(thousands)
Unemployment rate
(percent)
Percent distribution
Characteristic
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Total..............................
579
524
1,130
4.9
4.9
6.3
100.0
100.0
Male.........................................
356
333
717
4.7
4.6
6.0
61.5
63.5
63.5
Married, wife present____
All other..................... ........
166
190
156
177
375
342
2.9
10.6
2.8
10.6
4.1
12.6
28.7
32.8
29.8
33.8
33.2
30.3
Female.....................................
224
191
413
5.4
5.5
6.9
38.7
36.5
36.5
Married, husband present.
All other...............................
105
119
90
101
178
235
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
6.0
7.7
18.1
20.6
17.2
19.3
15.8
20.8
Male............ ..................... .......
356
333
717
4.7
4.6
6.0
61.5
63.5
63.5
White....................................
Nonwhite.............................
243
112
252
81
550
166
3.7
11.2
3.9
10.8
5.1
13.9
42.0
19.3
48.1
15.5
48.7
14.7
Female.....................................
224
191
413
5.4
5.5
6.9
38.7
36.5
36.5
White...................................
Nonwhite________________
164
61
138
53
330
83
4.8
9.0
4.6
11.7
6.4
10.0
28.3
10.5
26.3
10.1
29.2
7.3
100.0
Industry and occupation oj latest job held by the unemployed
The big difference in the previous job experience of unemployed
workers in areas of substantial labor surplus, as contrasted with other
major labor market areas, was the much higher ratio of factory un
employed to total unemployed. Nearly two-fifths of the 1.1 million
jobless in areas of substantial labor surplus were formerly employed
m manufacturing industries; only one-fifth of those in class 1 areas
were factory workers. (See table 3.) The work force in areas of
substantial labor surplus was generally more heavily concentrated in
manufacturing, and in addition, the unemployment rate for factory
workers was much higher in class 3 areas; in durable goods industries,
the rate was 7 percent as compared with 4 percent in the other areas.
The automobile and apparel industries each accounted for about
5 percent of the unemployed in class 3 areas but were a negligible
proportion in the other areas.
In class 1 areas, a higher proportion of the unemployed than in
class 3 were new entrants to the labor market, were from growing
industries (trade, services, government) or were from sectors with wide
seasonal fluctuations (agriculture, construction). This means that
class 1 area unemployment reflected to a much larger extent short
term frictional situations and to a smaller extent basic economic
maladjustments.
Although there was a greater concentration of class 1 area unem
ployed in nonmanufacturing industries, the rates of unemployment in
three important sectors—construction, transportation, and trade—were
lower than in class 3 areas. On the other hand, in those industries
less closely related to the general level of business activity such as
services and government, unemployment rates were virtually the
same in class 1 as compared with class 3 areas.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
9
T a b l e 3 . — Unemployment by industry of last job, labor market area class, spring
1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number of unemployed
(thousands)
Unemployment rate
(percent)
Percent distribution
Industry group
Class
1
Total________ _______
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
4.9
4.9
6.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.3
5.7
13.1
86.9
13.0
87.0
10.5
89.5
Class
3
579
524
1,130
New workers................... .......
Experienced unemployed
76
503
68
456
119
1,011
Agriculture...... ...................
Nonagricultural indus
tries........ .......................
26
14
7
7.5
5.8
3.2
4.5
2.7
.6
477
442
1,004
4.2
4.3
5.7
82.4
84.4
88.8
Self employed and un
paid........ .......................
P r iv a te h o u se h o ld
workers........... — .........
Government workers
Other wage and salary
workers....................
Mining, forestry and
fisheries......................
Construction-.............
Manufacturing. ..........
Durable goods_____
Automobiles..........
All other................
Nondurable goods _ _
Textile-mill............
Apparel..................
All other_________
Transportation and
other utilities........
Railroads...................
All other....................
Trade.............................
Service-----------------------
14
14
24
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.1
30
40
17
15
30
33
5.6
2.3
5.1
1.5
4.3
1.9
5.2
6.9
3.2
2.9
2.7
2.9
396
397
920
5.0
4.9
6.8
68.4
75.8
81.4
1
73
111
53
53
58
8
9
42
3
66
141
87
7
80
55
3
9
43
14
125
416
242
57
185
173
22
65
86
(0
10.4
4.8
4.1
0)
4.5
5.5
0)
6.4
5.0
0)
12.3
4.2
3.9
4.7
3.8
4.9
0)
7.6
4.5
.6
12.6
26.9
16.6
1.3
15.3
10.5
.6
1.7
8.2
1.2
11.1
36.8
21.4
5.0
16.4
15.3
1.9
5.8
7.6
28
8
20
101
84
20
7
13
106
62
58
16
42
183
126
3.3
4.3
3.1
5.0
4.3
3.0
3.9
2.7
6.1
3.7
3.8
1.3
2.5
20.2
11.8
5.1
1.4
3.7
16.2
11.2
* Percent not shown where base is less than 100,000.
6043^— 60- 8
4.3
.2
0)
15.0
12.6
7.0
19.2
7.0
9.2
11.7
6.2 ~"""9.~2~
7.0
1G.0
8.6
1.4
10.6
1.6
5.4
7.0
4.9
5.5
4.7
6.8
4.6
4.8
1.4
3.4
17.4
14.5
1
0
Industrial Composition of the Unemployed, by Labor Market Area Grouping:
Spring 1959
Percent
Percent
10
0
Proportion of the unemployed from manufacturing,
mining, transportation and utilities...
90
Proportion of the unemployed from trade, services,
government, or who had no previous
work experience• •
•
90
80
80
70
60
60
-
50
50
40
30
20
1
0
1 0
CLASS 1
CLASS II
U IT D STATES D P R M N O L B R
N E
EAT ET F AO
B R A O L 8 R SAITC
U E U F A 0 TTSIS
CLASS 111
CLASS 1
CLASS II
CLASS III
'UNEM
PLOYM
ENT I A E S O SUBSTANTIAL L B R SURPLUS
N RA F
AO
Chart 1.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
11
The occupation data in table 4 reflect the same basic factors as the
industry statistics—a higher rate of unemployment in nearly all occu
pations in class 3, a higher proportion of factory operatives (semiskilled'
production workers) among the unemployed, and a lower proportion
of farm workers, service workers, and new workers.
T a b l e 4 . — Unemployment by occupation group, by labor market area class, spring1
1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Occupation group
Number of unemployed
(thousands)
Unemployment rate
(percent)
Percent distribution
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
Class
1
Class
2
Class
3
4.9
4.9
6.3
100.0
100.0
100.0;
13.0
87.0
10.5
89.5
Total..............................
579
524
1,130
New workers______________
Experienced unemployed-__
76
503
68
456
119
1,011
4.3
4.3
5.7
13.1
86.9
White collar........................
Professional and tech
nical_____ ___________
Managers, officials, pro
prietors........ .................
Clerical.............................
Sales.................... ...........
Blue collar. ..........................
Craftsmen and foremen.
Operatives........................
Manufacturing............
All other.......................
Laborers....... ...................
Manufacturing............
All other......................
Service occupations............
Farm occupations..............
122
117
251
2.2
2.4
3.2
21.1
22.3
22.2’
17
20
30
1.1
1.7
1.5
2.9
3.8
2.7
11
71
23
268
69
124
60
63
75
12
63
98
18
18
46
33
255
64
119
78
42
72
21
51
77
12
34
132
55
629
132
347
256
90
150
46
104
130
3
.9
3.6
2.8
6.6
4.5
6.7
7.0
6.4
10.9
11.7
10.8
5.9
6.2
1.5
2.7
4.1
6.0
4.1
5.8
6.3
5.2
10.8
9.2
11.7
6.0
5.4
2.0
4.5
4.7
8.4
5.3
8.8
10.1
6.4
14.1
14.2
14.0
5.8
1.7
1.9
12.3
4.0
46.3
11.9
21.4
10.4
10.9
13.0
2.1
10.9
16.9
3.1
3.4
8.8
6.3
48.7
12.2
22.7
14.9
8.0
13.7
4.0
9.7
14.7
2.3
3.0
11.7
4.9
55.7
11.7
30.7
22.7
8.0
13.3
4.1
9.2
11.5
.3
Duration oj unemployment
One of the most critical measures of the nature of unemployment is
its duration. Most industrial workers are covered by unemployment
insurance, and may have some savings to tide them over short periods
of unemployment. But when unemployment extends for long dura
tion involving exhaustion of savings as well as of entitlement for
unemployment benefits, serious social implications are involved. In
this respect, class 3 areas also showed up considerably worse than
class 1 areas. One-fourth of the unemployed in class 3 had ex
perienced a jobless spell of more than 6 months; this was true of only
one-eighth of the unemployed in class 1 (table 5). Conversely, a
smaller proportion of the class 3 unemployed had been seeking work
for only 1 month or less.
Class 3 areas accounted for over 40 percent of the very long-term
unemployed in the nation (over one-half year), but they represented
only 25 percent of the short-term unemployed.
Differences in duration of unemployment would undoubtedly be
even greater, and more revealing, if data were available for an entire
calendar year for these areas. It is hoped that such data can be
developed in a future work experience study covering an entire year.
1
2
Proportion of the unemployed who were jobless
for 15 weeks or longer at the time of the survey...
Proportion of the unemployed who were jobless
for less than 5 weeks at the time of the survey. . . _
80
70
60
30
■■■I
m m
27 or I
Longer I
CLASS 1
CLASS 11
U ITED STATES D
N
EPAR EN O LA O
TM T F B R
B R A O L B RS A I T C
U E U F A O TTSIS
CLASS 111
CLASS 1
CLASS II
CLASS III
UNEMPLOYMENT I A E S O SU
N RA F
BSTAN
TIAL L B R SURPLUS
AO
Chart 2. Long-Term and Short-Term Unemployed, by Labor Market Area Grouping:
Spring 1959
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OP SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
13
T a b l e 5. — Unemployment, by duration, by labor market area class, spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number of unemployed
(thousands)
Percent distribution
Duration of unemployment (weeks)
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Total................................................
579
524
1,130
100.0
100.0
100.0
Less than 5................................................
6 to 10.........................................................
11 to 14.......................................................
15 or longer................................................
269
102
42
166
214
97
40
172
360
199
96
476
46.5
17.6
7.3
28.7
40.8
18.5
7.6
32.8
31.9
17.6
8.5
42.1
15 to 26................................................
27 or longer.........................................
92
74
72
100
187
289
15.9
12.8
13.7
19.1
16.5
25.6
EMPLOYMENT
Industry and occupation
The industrial character of employment in c a s 1 areas showed
ls
a'heavier concentration in sectors which have shown steady employ
ment growth and which are l s subject to c c i a unemployment.
es
ylcl
Government, trade, and service made up 50 percent of employment in
c a s 1 ar a , 40 percent in c a s 3 (table 6 . On the other hand, as
ls
es
ls
)
noted e r i r manufacturing was much more important i c a s 3 than
ale,
n ls
in c a s 1 comprising one-third of the employed as compared with
ls ,
oeffh
n-it.
In l n with the industrial pattern, there was a larger proportion
ie
of semiskilled factory operatives among the employed as well as the
unemployed in c a s 3 than in c a s 1 (table 7 . Other differences
ls
ls
)
were relatively small, but there were perceptibly lower proportions of
white c l a ( s e i l y professional) and service workers in c a s 3
olr epcal
ls .
T a b l e 6. — Employment by industry group, by labor market area class, spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number of employed
(thousands)
Percent distribution
Industry group
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Total................................................
11,142
10,136
16,768
100.0
100.0
100.0
Agriculture................................................
Nonagricultural industries___________
319
10,823
229
9,907
209
16,560
2.9
97.1
2.3
97.7
1.2
98.8
Self-employed and unpaid family.
Private household workers----------Government workers____________
Other wage and salary workers.. .
Mining, forestry, and fisheries.
Construction............................
Manufacturing...........................
Durable goods.....................
Automobiles_________
All other.......................
Nondurable goods_______
Textile—mill_________
Apparel--------------------All other.......................
Transportation and other
utilities____________________
Railroads.____ __________
All other...............................
Trade...........................................
Service______________________
1,138
506
1,714
7,467
44
626
2,225
1,226
89
1,137
998
74
131
794
988
319
960
7,640
28
472
3,229
2,168
143
2,025
1,060
29
110
922
1,599
673
1,717
12,570
67
711
5,524
3,222
432
2,790
2,301
233
549
1,520
10.2
4.5
15.4
67.0
.4
5.6
20.0
11.0
.8
10.2
9.0
.7
1.2
7.1
9.7
3.1
9.5
75.4
.3
4.7
31.9
21.4
1.4
20.0
10.5
.3
1.1
9.1
9.5
4.0
10.2
75.0
.4
4.2
32.9
19.2
2.6
16.6
13.7
1.4
3.3
7.9
809
177
632
1,911
1,854
646
171
475
1,644
1,622
1,125
276
849
2,509
2,637
7.3
1.6
5.7
17.2
16.6
6.4
1.7
4.7
16.2
16.0
6.7
1.6
5.1
15.0
15.7
14
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OP SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
T a b l e 7. — Employment by occupation group, by labor market area class, spring
1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number of employed
(thousands)
Percent distribution
Occupation group
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Total................................................
11,142
10,136
16,768
100.0
100.0
100.0
White collar..............................................
5,527
4,736
7,611
49.6
46.7
45.4
Professional and technical..............
Managers, officials, and proprie
tors...................................................
Clerical................................................
Sales....................................................
1,544
1,167
1,965
13.9
11.5
11.7
1,252
1,918
813
1,150
1,655
764
1,703
2,827
1,116
11.2
17.2
7.3
11.3
16.3
7.5
10.2
16.9
6.7
Blue collar.................................................
3,794
3,998
6,867
34.1
39.4
41.0
Craftsmen and foremen...................
Operatives..........................................
Manufacturing...........................
All other......................................
Laborers.............................................
Manufacturing...........................
All other......................................
1,459
1,721
792
929
614
91
523
1,486
1,919
1,160
759
593
207
386
2,360
3,590
2,267
1,322
917
278
639
13.1
15.4
7.1
8.3
5.5
.8
4.7
14.7
18.9
11.4
7.5
5.9
2.0
3.8
14.1
21.4
13.5
7.9
5.5
1.7
3.8
Service occupations.................................
1,551
1,196
2,123
13.9
11.8
12.7
Private household workers.............
All other.............................................
425
1,126
258
938
589
1,534
3.8
10.1
2.5
9.3
3.5
9.1
209
170
2.5
2.1
1.0
Farm occupations....................................
274^
Hours oj work
Part-time employment (less than 35 hours during the survey week)
did not vary significantly among the three area groupings, representing
about 15 percent of nonfarm employment. The proportion of the
employed on part-time workweeks due to economic reasons (such as
slack work, material shortages, inability to find full-time work) totaled
about 3 percent in all three groupings. At the same time, however,
a larger proportion of the class 1 than of the class 3 workers had
employment in excess of 40 hours a week, implying more overtime
work at premium pay and more dual job holding (table 8).
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
15
T a b l e 8 . — Employment in nonfarm industries by hours of work, by labor market
area class, spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number of employed
(thousands)
Percent distribution
Hours of work
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Total__________ ________ ______
10,823
9,907
16,560
100.0
100.0
100.0
With a job but not at work__________
A t work______________ ______________
340
10,483
332
9,575
554
16,006
3.1
96.9
3.4
96.6
3.3
96.7
1 to 34 hours_____________________
1,709
1,484
2,420
15.8
15.0
14.6
Usually work full time,
worked part time for—
Economic reasons________
Other reasons........... ..........
Usually work part time:
Economic reasons________
Other reasons____________
153
270
151
263
266
388
1.4
2.5
1.5
2.7
1.6
2.3
168
1,118
156
915
276
1,491
1.6
10.3
1.6
9.2
1.7
9.0
35 hours or more_________________
8,776
8,091
13,588
81.1
81.7
82.1
35 to 40 hours________________
41 hours or more_____________
5,523
3,253
5,491
2,600
9,650
3,938
51.0
30.1
55.4
26.2
58.3
23.8
POPULATION AND LABOR FORCE
The civilian noninstitutional population in areas of substantial labor
surplus, as might be expected, tended to be somewhat older than in
areas with more balanced labor supply-demand relationships or with
labor shortages. For example, 63 percent of the class 3 area popula
tion were 35 years of age and over as compared with 59 percent of
the class 1 area population (table 9). This undoubtedly reflects some
tendency for young persons to migrate from chronically depressed and
other areas of substantial labor surplus in search of better employ
ment opportunities. Partly as a result, the labor force in class 3 areas
also included a smaller proportion of workers under 35.
T a b l e 9. — Civilian noninstitutional population by age and sex, by labor market
area class, spring 1959
[Based on the monthly labor force survey]
Number in the population
(thousands)
Percent distribution
Age and sex
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Total................................................
19,945
18,505
30,793
100.0
100.0
100.0
Male..................- .......................................
9,271
8,818
14,526
46.5
47.7
47.2
14 to 19 years____________ _______
20 to 24 years....................... ..............
25 to 34 years. ...................................
35 to 44 years.....................................
45 to 54 years_____ ________ _____
55 to 64 years. ...................................
65 years and over..............................
1,091
768
1,879
1,871
1,586
1,128
949
992
716
1,805
1,789
1,477
1,092
947
1,652
1,038
2,816
3,022
2,512
1,903
1,586
5.5
3.9
9.4
9.4
8.0
5.7
4.8
5.4
3.9
9.8
9.7
8.0
5.9
5.1
5.4
3.4
9.1
9.8
8.2
6.2
5.2
Female.......................................................
10,673
9,688
16,267
53.5
52.4
52.8
14 to 19 years....................................
20 to 24 years................... .................
25 to 34 years______________ _____
35 to 44 years--.................................
45 to 54 years.....................................
55 to 64 y e a r s..................................
65 years and over..............................
1,258
1,002
2,158
2,019
1,695
1,248
1,295
1,100
886
1,790
1,804
1,599
1,227
1,285
1,746
1,386
2,954
3,359
2,743
2,043
2,038
6.3
5.0
10.8
10.1
8.5
6.3
6.5
5.9
4.8
9.7
9.7
8.6
6.6
6.9
5.7
4.5
9.6
10.9
8.9
6.6
6.6
16
UNEM PLOYM ENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Table 10 shows labor force participation rates by age and sex for
four labor market area groupings, including separate data for chron
ically depressed areas (class 3B) and other areas of substantial labor
surplus (class 3A). These data are also presented in charts 3 and 4.
The labor force rates were the only separate data for chronically
depressed areas from the MRLF that were considered to have a small
enough degree of sampling variability to permit publication and
analysis.
The proportion of young men under 25 who were in the labor
force—either employed or seeking work—was lowest in chronically
depressed areas, highest in class 1 areas. The gap between the rates
was about 10 percentage points. The sharpest difference in worker
rates between class 1 and the chronically depressed area group (class
3B)—a 20-percentage-point difference—occurred among boys of high
school age (16 and 17), virtually all of whom are in school and ordi
narily seek only part-time work. Most of the young men aged 14 to
24 in the chronically depressed areas who were not in the labor force
were in school.
The data also showed lower labor force participation rates for men
over 65 in chronically depressed areas, but the differeDces between
t3
^pes of areas were comparatively small. The lower rates of partici
pation of this age group reflects in part the increasing number of men
who are becoming eligible for social security and private pension
benefits. With the loss of their jobs, and facing little opportunity
for reemployment, these older men apparently retire from the labor
market. This pattern of increased retirement under conditions of
relatively high unemployment was apparent during the 1957-58 re
cession, when the number of persons drawing social security benefits
rose sharply.
On the other hand, among men in the central age groups (25 to 64)
there was no significant difference in rates of labor force participation
between class 1 areas and chronically depressed areas. These adult
men appear as unemployed in the labor force survey if they do not
have jobs and do not drop out of the labor force from discouragement.
Moreover, to keep these facts in perspective, it should be pointed
out that even if the worker rates for men in the chronically depressed
areas were as high in each case as in class 1 areas and even if all these
additional labor force members were unemployed the net addition to
the national unemployed total would be less than 50,000 or a little
over 1 percent of the spring 1959 level of unemployment.
Of course, there are other factors that affect labor force participation
rates that have not been considered here. We know, for example,
that class 1 areas and chronically depressed areas differ with respect
to other characteristics that influence labor force participation
(industrial distribution, ethnic composition of the population,
demographic characteristics) but with the present sample, it is impos
sible to standardize for these differences. However, the very fact of
being an area of high unemployment as against being a prosperous
area, in turn, has an influence on the kinds of people who live in the
area (e.g., young, middle aged, older) and the kinds of industries that
might be attracted.
The data for women, in contrast to those for men, appeared to lend
some support to the “additional worker” theory. This theory assumes
that in families where the main breadwinner is unable to earn sufficient
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
17
income for the family’s needs, the wife or some other member will
enter the labor force to assist with the support of the family.
Industries where women usually seek work, such as trade and service,
are in general less affected by unemployment even in areas of substan
tial labor surplus.
The worker rates for women seem to suggest that either unusual
need or especially good opportunities are among the incentives which
motivate women to enter the labor market. For example, in the 35to 64-year age group, the proportion of working women was highest
in chronically depressed areas, (50 percent) next highest in class 1
areas (47 percent), and lowest in class 2 and 3 areas (43 percent).
The patterns for women under 35 were somewhat different. Among
teenage girls, for example, differences between the area groupings
were small, but the worker rate was at least average or better in
chronically depressed areas. For those in the 20- to 24-year group,
the rate was highest in chronically depressed areas (nearly 60 percent),
second highest in other areas of substantial labor surplus (52 percent).
It may be that opportunities for early marriage or a college education
are fewer in areas of substantial labor surplus than in other urban
centers. Also, it is possible that young married couples in areas of
substantial labor surplus find it more necessary for both husband
and wife to work, at least before the birth of their first child.
In the 25- to 34-year age bracket, the worker rate was highest in
class 1 areas (40 percent). In other areas, it was just about the
same (35 percent). Of course, this is the age group where women
are most likely to have young children to care for, a major deterrent
to labor force participation in all areas and population groups.
T a b le
10.— 'Labor force status by age and sex, by labor market area class, spring 1959
[Based on monthly labor force survey]
Number in the labor force
(thousands)
Labor force rate
Age and sex
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Total
A
B
Total...........................
11,721
10,658
17,898
58.8
57.6
58.1
58.2
Male_____________________
7,609
7,198
11,896
82.1
81.6
81.9
82.3
77.3
14 to 19 years....................
20 to 24 years. ...................
25 to 34 years.....................
35 to 44 years.....................
45 to 54 years.....................
55 to 64 years.....................
65 years and over..............
472
687
1,827
1,831
1,514
954
323
409
603
1,742
1,754
1,430
962
300
579
883
2,755
2,977
2,440
1,730
533
43.3
89.5
97.2
97.9
95.5
84.6
34.0
41.2
84.2
96.5
98.0
96.8
88.1
31.7
35.0
85.1
97.8
98.5
97.1
90.9
33.6
35.2
85.4
97.9
98.6
97.5
91.4
34.1
33.3
80.6
96.9
97.6
93.2
86.7
30.6
Female...................................
4,112
3,461
6,002
38.5
35.7
36.9
36.6
40.0
14 to 19 years.....................
20 to 24 years........ ...........
25 to 34 years.....................
35 to 44 years........ ............
45 to 54 years.....................
55 to 64 years.....................
65 years and over.............
337
466
871
885
919
502
135
322
376
634
771
788
446
125
460
729
1,040
1,451
1,366
741
218
26.8
46.5
40.4
43.8
54.2
40.2
10.4
29.3
42.4
35.4
42.7
49.3
36.3
9.7
26.3
52.6
35.2
43.2
49.8
36.3
10.7
26.2
52.0
35.2
42.4
49.0
35.5
11.1
28.7
58.9
35.7
50.3
57.0
42.2
8.3
Class 3A— Substantial labor surplus areas except depressed areas.
Class 3B—Chronically depressed areas.
57.3
18
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OP SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Chart 3. Labor Force Participation Rates for Men by A g e ,(
by Labor Market Area Grouping: Spring 1959
r
1
0
I
20
30
40
~i------ r~ ——
I
50
I
60
I
70
80
90
Percent
14 to 19
Years
20 to 24
Years
25 to 44
Years
1 0 2 2/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
45 to 64
Years
O S / / / / / / / /
V////////////S7777n
65 Years
and Over
U IT D S A E D P R M N O L B R
N E TTS EAT ET F AO
B RA O LBRSAITC
UEU F AO TTSIS
ZZZ2Z / / / / / W W W
E23
Class IAreas
fX\l Class II Areas
(»;* i L b r S rp s A s,
.• a o u lu rea
t t « Ece t Dp sse
* 1 x p e re d
OQ C ro ica
h n lly
D ressed A o
ep
re s
100
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
19
Chart 4. Labor Force Participation Rates (or Women by Age,
by Labor Market Area Grouping: Spring 1959
60
50
70
80
90
14 to 19
Years
y7777/;yy//y77/yz/zsy/y//;A
20 to 24
Years
/ / // / / / // / / // / / / // / .
25 to 34
Years
J
i
7W M 7/;;//777Z?7/7/77/7A
35 to 64
Years
65 Years
and Over
3
w a
U IT D S A E D P R M N O L B R
N E TTS EAT E T F AO
B R A O LBRSAITC
U E U F AO TTSIS
EZ3
Class I Areas
Class II Area?
a o S lu rea
br u s
E 3 LEce trpp A ds.
x p O re
e sse
C ro ica
h n lly
E Z Op sse A s
e re d rea
Prce t
e n
100
20
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
A p p e n d ix t o
P art
I
List of areas included in each class
CLASS l
Arizona: Phoenix
Arkansas: Little Rock
California:
Fresno
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco-Oakland
San Jose
Stockton
Colorado: Denver
Connecticut:
Hartford
Stamford-Norwalk
Delaware: Wilmington
District of Columbia
Florida:
Jacksonville
Miami
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Georgia:
Atlanta
Augusta
Macon
Savannah
Illinois:
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline
Rockford
Iowa:
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Kansas: Wichita
Louisiana:
Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Shreveport
Massachusetts: Boston
Michigan: Kalamazoo
Mississippi: Jackson
Nebraska: Omaha
New Hampshire: Manchester
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New York: Rochester
North Carolina:
Charlotte
Winston-Salem
Ohio:
Cincinnati
Columbus
Oklahoma:
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Pennsylvania:
Harrisburg
Lancaster
South Carolina:
Charleston
Greenville
Tennessee: Nashville
Texas:
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
San Antonio
Utah: Salt Lake City
Virginia:
Hampton-Newport News
Norfolk-Portsmouth
Richmond
Washington: Seattle
Wisconsin: Madison
CLASS 2
California:
Los Angeles-Long Beach
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Connecticut: New Haven
Georgia: Columbus
Illinois:
Chicago
Peoria
Indiana: Indianapolis
Michigan:
Battle Creek
Lansing
Saginaw
Minnesota: Minneapolis-St. Paul
Missouri:
Kansas City
St. Louis
New York:
Binghamton
Syracuse
North Carolina: Greensboro-High Point
Ohio:
Akron
Canton
Cleveland
Dayton
Hamilton-Middleton
Lorain-Elyria
Youngstown
Oregon: Portland
Pennsylvania: Reading
Tennessee: Memphis
Texas:
Fort Worth
Houston
Wisconsin:
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Racine
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
21
CLASS 3 ABBAS
Alabama:
Birmingham
Mobile
Connecticut:
Bridgeport
New Britain-Bristol
Water bury
Illinois:
Aurora7
Joliet
Indiana:
Evansville
Fort Wayne
South Bend
Terre Haute
Kentucky: Louisville
Maine: Portland
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts:
Brockton
Fall River
Lawrence
Lowell
New Bedford
Springfield-Holyoke
Worcester
Michigan:
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights
Minnesota: Duluth-Superior
New Jersey:
Atlantic City
Newark8
Paterson
Perth Amboy
New York:
Alban y-Schenectady-Troy
Buffalo
New York-northeastern New Jersey
Utica-Rome
North Carolina:
Asheville
Durham
Ohio: Toledo
Pennsylvania:
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Altoona
Erie
Johnstown
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Scranton
Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton
York
Rhode Island: Providence
Tennessee:
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Texas:
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Corpus Christi
Virginia:
Huntington-Ashland
Roanoke
Washington:
Spokane
Takoma
West Virginia:
Charleston
Wheeling-Steubenville
S A M P L IN G E R R O R S F O R E S T IM A T E S OP C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S OP T H E L A B O R
FORCE FROM
THE
M R LF S A M P L E
Below are given the approximate sampling errors for various
estimates obtained from the monthly labor force survey in April and
May 1959. The data presented in the report are averages for April
and May, thus reducing the sampling errors shown in the tables
(which relate to a single month) by 20 percent. On the other hand,
the sampling error for areas are generally relatively larger than for
the country as a whole, so that on balance the figures shown below
are probably satisfactory approximations.
7 Separate M R L F data unavailable, combined with Joliet.
8 Separate M R L F data unavailable, combined with New York-northeastern New Jersey.
22
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OP SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Standard error of level of monthly estimates
[In thousands]
Both sexes
Male
Female
Size of estimate
Total or
white
Nonwhite
5
11
15
24
34
48
75
100
140
180
210
220
10,000............................................
50,000............................................
100,000..........................................
250,000..........................................
500,000..........................................
1,000,000.......................................
2,500,000.......................................
5,000,000.......................................
10,000,000.....................................
20,000,000.....................................
30,000,000.....................................
40,000,000.....................................
Total or
white
5
10
14
21
30
40
50
50
Nonwhite
7
14
20
31
43
60
90
110
140
150
Total or
white
5
10
14
21
30
40
50
Nonwhite
5
10
14
22
31
45
70
100
130
170
5
10
14
21
30
40
50
Standard error of percentages
Base of percentage (thousands)
centage
150
1 or 99...................
2 or 98...................
5 or 95...................
10 or 90.................
15 or 85.................
20 or 80.................
25 or 75.................
35 or 65.................
50...........................
250
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
1.0
1.4
2.2
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.2
4.7
4.9
0.8
1.1
1.7
2.3
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.9
0.6
.8
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
0.4
.5
.9
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.9
0.3
.4
.6
.8
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.2
.3
.5
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.2
.2
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.8
.9
0.1
.2
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
0.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.3
.4
.4
0.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.3
.3
P a rt
75,000
0.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
II
Part II of this study is based on tabulations from the 1-percent
sample survey of unemployment insurance claimants operated jointly
in 1956 and 1957 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of
Employment Security with the cooperation of the State employment
security agencies. From this source, it was possible to trace the
unemployment experience of the same individuals over an entire year
(July 1956-June 1957). The data relate to all persons who ter
minated at least one spell of insured unemployment at any time
during that period. Separate figures are available on exhaustions.
The data on duration of unemployment reflect an accumulation of all
spells of insured unemployment experienced during the 12 months
under observation.
In the 1-percent sample, information was also collected on the
characteristics of claimants—age, sex, marital status, and occupation
and industry of the job held before their first spell of insured unem
ployment. Because of time and cost factors, it was possible to use
only a subsample (0.2 of 1 percent) in this study. Nevertheless,
reliable information could be obtained at a fairly detailed level.
(See table of standard errors on p. 34.) In fact, the sample for the
insured unemployed was sufficiently large to show separate data for
the United States for depressed areas, and all other areas. Chron
ically depressed areas comprise those major labor market areas which
were classified by the Bureau of Employment Security as having a
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
23
substantial labor surplus in at least three out of the six regular bi
monthly classifications between July 1956 and June 1957, as well as
the smaller labor market areas so classified at least once during that
period.
According to the definition of chronically depressed areas used for
this study, 21 major labor market areas were so identified; of these,
15 were also classified as chronically depressed in the more recent BES
study,9 which used a slightly different set of criteria. By and large,
areas which had over 6 percent of their labor force unemployed in the
last half of 1956 or the first half of 1957—a period of high and grow
ing employment—are considered chronically depressed areas for the
purpose of this study.
There are several advantages to be derived from Part II of this
study:
1. These data are based on a relatively large sample of insured
unemployed, permitting the presentation of separate data on
their characteristics in depressed areas.
2. Separate data on the number and characteristics of exhaustees in depressed areas and other areas are available.
3. Although beyond the scope of this report, the publication
of these data permits comparison of insured unemployment and
total unemployment in terms of experience for an entire year.
Some of the limitations in the use of these data are:
1. Among the major labor market areas identified as depressed
is Detroit, which accounts for nearly half the population in the
combined group. To a large extent, therefore, the unemployment
characteristics of Detroit dominate the pattern for the depressed
areas as a whole.
2. There are no comparable figures for the characteristics of
covered employment—that is, the cumulative number of persons
who worked at any time during the 12-month period under study
in covered employment, by age, sex, marital status, occupation,
industry, by type of area. Therefore, it is impossible to esti
mate a covered labor force or to calculate unemployment rates.
3. The figures on duration reflect administrative and legislative
limitations on duration of benefits. Moreover, these limitations
vary by State and comparisons of exhaustion rates or duration
of insured unemployment as between depressed and other areas
may not be entirely valid because of these variations.
The major findings of the study are described below.
Altogether there were 6.3 million different persons who had one or
more spells of insured unemployment at some time between July 1956
and June 1957. Of this total, about 900,000— 15 percent—were lo
cated in chronically depressed areas as defined for purposes of this
report.
If it is assumed that the ratio of insured to total unemployment of
60 percent was roughly the same in chronically depressed areas as in
the United States, then total unemployment in depressed areas would
have accounted for about 400,000 of the 2.8 million average level of
unemployment in 1956 and 1957. Allowing for the fact that duration
of unemployment tends to be longer in chronically depressed than in
other areas, this estimate should be raised somewhat—perhaps to
about 500,000 or nearly 20 percent.
» Op. cit.
24
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Of course, this represents a rough approximation. There may be
other reasons why the ratio of insured unemployment to total unem
ployment would differ in chronically depressed areas from that for
the country as a whole. Nevertheless, the figures do provide an order
of magnitude as to how much unemployment was located in chroni
cally depressed areas in a period of generally high employment for the
Nation as a whole. The estimate of a little under 20 percent com
pares with an estimate of about 15 percent in the BES report on
chronically depressed areas as of May 1959; but that report related
to fewer areas.
Of course, it should be remembered that even in chronically de
pressed areas, some unemployment would have occurred irrespective
of the state of the labor market. All nonfarm areas are subject to
frictional unemployment caused by seasonal fluctuations in employ
ment, by voluntary job changing, and by the constant stream of new
entrants and reentrants into the labor market. Improved economic
opportunities in chronically depressed areas would reduce both long
term unemployment and short-term frictional unemployment, but
some of the unemployment in such areas would be present even under
more favorable economic conditions.
On the other hand, the level of unemployment in chronically de
pressed areas may not reflect the full magnitude of their economic
plight. It has been hypothesized, for example, that there is under
utilization of labor in such areas which is not manifested in the num
bers of insured or total unemployed. Some persons who remain
outside the labor force presumably would seek and accept work if the
employment situation were more favorable. Some confirmation of
this tendency for young men and older men of retirement age is
provided by the data on worker rates in part I. At the same time,
adult men who cannot find jobs in their own line of work might accept
poorer jobs at lower pay, requiring less training and skill.
Moreover, the existence of chronically depressed areas may have
secondary effects that act as a drag on general economic activity.
Such effects cannot be measured directly in terms of unemployment
in other areas, but the degree of interrelation of our economy is such
that there is a strong presumption of this effect.
Age, sex, and marital status
In depressed areas a relatively higher proportion of the insured
unemployed were men between the ages of 25 and 54 years (49 percent
against 42 percent in other areas). Similarly, a higher proportion
were married men. On the other hand, 12 percent of the insured un
employed in nondepressed areas were women between the ages of
45 and 64, in contrast to only 7 percent of those in depressed areas.
In terms of the welfare aspects of the problem, unemployment was
clearly more serious in depressed areas not only because of the higher
rate but also because of the greater concentration among family heads.
Most married men in the 25- to 54-year age groups have dependent
children and many have the additional financial responsibility of
mortgages and other kinds of consumer debt. Married women, on
the other hand, are less frequently the primary wage earners in their
families. Although the loss of their earnings can make a significant
dent in the family’s buying power, it probably does not spell financial
disaster.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OP SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
T a b l e 1 1 .—
25
Insured unemployment by type of area, by age, sext and marital status,
July 1956-June 1957
[Cumulative number of persons who terminated 1 or more spells of insured unemployment during specified
period]
Thousands of persons
Percent distribution
Age, sex, and marital status
United
States
De
pressed
areas
Other
areas
United
States
De
pressed
areas
Other
areas
Total.......................................................
6,300
908
5,392
100.0
100.0
100.0
Male..................................................................
4,119
640
3,479
65.4
70.4
64.5
Under 25 years..........................................
25 to 34 years............................................
35 to 44 years......................... _.................
45 to 54 years.............................................
55 to 64 years.............................................
65 years and over.....................................
696
989
905
810
503
216
104
171
144
129
70
22
592
818
761
681
433
194
11.0
15.7
14.4
12.9
8.0
3.4
11.5
18.8
15.9
14.2
7.7
2.4
11.0
15.2
14.1
12.6
8.0
3.6
M arried...................................................
Single..........................................................
Widowed or divorced.............................
Fem ale............................................................
3,105
846
168
2,180
491
124
25
268
2,614
722
143
1,912
49.3
13.4
2.7
34.6
54.1
13.7
2.8
29.6
48.5
13.4
2.7
35.5
Under 25 years..........................................
25 to 34 years.............................................
35 to 44 years.............................................
45 to 54 years............................................
55 to 64 years.............................................
65 years and over.....................................
299
521
607
456
236
61
38
72
89
48
16
5
261
449
518
408
220
56
4.7
8.3
9.6
7.2
3.7
1.0
4.2
7.9
9.8
5.3
1.8
.6
4.8
8.3
9.6
7.6
4.1
1.0
Married......................................................
Single..........................................................
Widowed or divroced..............................
1,597
328
255
194
51
23
1,403
277
232
25.3
5.2
4.0
21.4
5.6
2.5
26.0
5.1
4.3
Industry and occupation
The industry figures relate to the job held by persons before their
first spell of insured unemployment during the 12-month period under
study. About a third of the insured unemployed experienced more
than one spell, but it is not known how many found jobs in other
industries or occupations before being laid off a second or third time.
The industry and occupation distributions for those with only one
spell of insured unemployment were, however, substantially the same
as for the total, suggesting that conclusions about the occupations
and industries of the insured unemployed would not be invalidated
by job mobility between spells of unemployment.
Since the chronically depressed areas included Detroit, 1 out of
every 5 insured unemployed in the depressed areas was from the auto
industry in contrast to only 1 out of 20 in all other areas. Other
industries accounting for a disproportionately high number of insured
unemployed in chronically depressed areas were mining and textiles.
Conversely, a smaller proportion were from industries subject to wide
seasonal variations (construction, trade, food processing) or from
industries characterized by steady employment growth (finance, serv
ice, government). It is noteworthy, however, that even in chronically
depressed areas at least a third of the insured unemployed came from
these latter industries—not usually thought of as being directly subject
to structural unemployment. Two-thirds came from manufacturing,
mining, and transportation.
Semiskilled workers accounted for 4 out of every 10 insured unem
ployed in depressed areas but for only 3 out of 10 in other areas.
26
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Skilled workers also accounted for a slightly higher proportion of the
insured unemployed in chronically depressed than in other areas.
These two groups together comprised 61 percent of insured unem
ployment in depressed areas; 48 percent in other areas.
In nondepressed areas, where much of the unemployment arises
from short-term frictional situations, a higher proportion of the insured
unemployed were white-collar or service workers.
T a b le
12.— Insured unemployment by type of area, by industry, July 1956-June
1957
[See headnote on table 11]
Thousands of persons
Percent distribution
Industry
United
States
De
pressed
areas
Total.......................................................
6,300
908
Mining........................ - ....................................
Construction...................................................
Manufacturing. ..............................................
Durable goods..................................... —
154
857
3,523
1,812
67
100
570
343
Primary metals.................................
Fabricated metals. ..........................
Machinery, excluding electrical-__
Electrical machinery........................
Transportation equipment.............
All other durable goods...................
174
201
215
229
428
565
Other
areas
United
States
De
pressed
areas
5,392
100.0
100.0
100.0
87
757
2,953
1,469
2.5
13.6
55.9
28.8
7.4
11.0
62.8
37.8
1.6
14.0
54.8
27.2
26
30
35
20
182
50
148
171
180
209
246
515
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
6.8
9.0
2.9
3.2
3.9
2.1
20.0
5.7
2.7
3.2
3.3
3.9
4.6
9.6
Other
areas
Nondurable goods....................................
1,711
227
1,484
27.2
25.0
27.5
Food and kindred. ..........................
Textile-mill______________________
Apparel...............................................
Leather...........................................
All other nondurables......... ...........
272
366
640
167
266
12
80
86
16
33
260
286
554
151
233
4.3
5.8
10.2
2.7
4.2
1.3
8.8
9.5
1.8
3.6
4.8
5.3
10.3
2.8
4.3
Transportation and other utilities...............
181
730
490
364
20
69
42
41
161
661
448
323
2.9
11.6
7.8
5.8
2.2
7.6
4.6
4.5
3.0
12.3
8.3
6.0
Finance, service, and government..............
All other industries.........................................
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
T a b le
27
13.— Insured unemployment by type of area, by occupation, July 1956June 1957
[See headnote on table 11]
Thousands of persons
Percent distribution
Occupation
United
States
Total................................................... .
De
pressed
areas
6 ,3 0 0
908
157
598
364
16
59
Professional and managerial_____________
Clerical and sales___ _______ ____________
Service. ________________________________
Skilled............................................... ..............
Semiskilled______________________________
Unskilled— . ______ _____________________
Entry and other._____ __________________
2 ,0 8 7
1 ,8 5 9
182
M ale._________ _________________________
Professional and managerial__________
Clerical and sales____________________
Service________________ _____________
Skilled.......................................................
Semiskilled__________________________
Unskilled.................... .............................
Entry and other_____________________
Female_______ __________ _____ _________
Professional and managerial............ .....
Clerical and sales. _________________
Service______________________________
Skilled.............................. .........................
Semiskilled-____ ____________________
Unskilled..................................... ............
Entry and other_____________________
Other
areas
United
States
De
pressed
areas
5 ,3 9 2
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
141
1 0 .0
6 .2
Other
areas
539
2 .5
9 .5
335
5 .8
1 .8
6 .5
3 .2
227
20
881
1 ,6 9 9
1 ,6 3 2
162
1 6 .7
3 3 .1
2 9 .5
2 .9
1 8 .7
4 2 .7
2 5 .0
2 .2
1 6 .3
3 1 .5
3 0 .3
3 .0
4 ,1 1 9
640
3 ,4 7 9
6 5 .4
7 0 .4
6 4 .5
118
240
210
952
14
104
1 .5
1 .9
25
215
1 .9
3 .8
2 .8
17
158
193
794
3 .3
1 5 .1
4 .0
3 .6
1 ,1 7 8
1 ,2 7 0
150
238
169
19
940
1 ,1 0 1
131
1 8 .7
2 0 .2
2 ,1 8 0
268
1 ,9 1 2
39
2
358
154
37
324
142
87
759
1 .6
1 4 .4
531
31
1 ,0 5 1
29
170
388
99
34
12
12
909
150
589
32
58
1
1 .9
1 7 .4
2 6 .2
2 .6
2 .4
1 8 .6
2 .1
1 4 .7
1 7 .4
2 0 .4
2 .4
3 4 .6
2 9 .6
3 5 .5
.6
.2
5 .7
2 .4
3 .7
6 .0
2 .6
1 .6
1 4 .1
9 .3
1 .3
1 .3
1 6 .5
6 .4
.5
.1
.6
.7
9 .8
Exhaustions, duration, and spells oj insured unemployment
Somewhat surprisingly, the rate of exhaustions in chronically de
pressed areas was only slightly higher than in other areas during the
second half of 1956 and first half of 1957 (17}£ per 100 against 16 per
100 persons who had at least one spell of insured unemployment).
Similarly, the proportion with 15 weeks or more of insured unemploy
ment was also only slightly higher in depressed areas—29 percent as
compared with 27 percent.
T a b le
14.— Duration and spells of insured unemployment by type of area, by age, sex, and marital status, July 1956-June 1957
2
8
[See headnote on table 11]
Percent distribution
Duration
Spells
Duration
Spells
Age, sex, and marital status
Total
UnitedlStates, total..........
6,300
Exhaus
tions
1,019
Total
Less
than 5
weeks
2,274
15 weeks
or
longer
1,726
1 only
4,307
2 only
1,240
3 or
more
752
Exhaus
tions
Less
than 5
weeks
15 weeks
or
longer
1 only
2 only
3 or
more
100.0
16.2
36.1
27.4
68.4
19.7
11.9
37.6
25.8
70.8
19.3
9.9
38.1
42.4
35.9
26.3
21.1
21.9
25.7
40.9
74.0
70.7
68.9
70.2
18.8
20.2
19.0
17.9
7.2
9.1
12.1
11.8
Male, total.................. .
4,119
594
1,547
1,063
2,918
795
406
100.0
14.4
Under 25..............
25 to 44..................
45 to 54...................
55 and over..........
696
1,894
810
719
73
202
119
200
265
803
291
189
147
415
208
294
515
1,339
558
505
131
382
154
129
50
173
98
85
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.5
10.7
14.7
27.8
2,180
424
726
663
1,389
445
347
100.0
19.4
33.3
30.4
63.7
20.4
15.9
Depressed areas, total___
908
158
316
265
599
192
117
100.0
17.4
34.7
29.2
66.0
21.2
12.8
Male, t o t a l............. .
640
107
228
186
450
128
62
100.0
16.7
35.6
29.1
70.3
20.0
9.7
Under 25—............
25 to 44..................
45 to 54__________
55 and over..........
104
315
129
92
16
43
17
31
36
120
48
25
30
83
30
42
73
216
98
65
22
68
19
17
9
31
12
10
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
15.4
13.7
13.2
33.7
34.6
38.1
37.2
27.2
28.8
26.3
23.3
45.7
70.2
68.6
76.0
70.7
21.2
21.6
14.7
18.5
8.7
9.8
9.3
10.9
Female, total........ —
Female, total........ ......
268
51
88
80
150
64
55
100.0
19.0
32.8
29.9
56.0
23.9
20.5
Other areas, total________
5,392
861
1,958
1,461
3,708
1,048
635
100.0
16.0
36.3
27.1
68.8
19.4
11.8
Male, total..................
3,479
487
1,319
877
2,468
667
344
100.0
14.0
37.9
25.2
70.9
19.2
9.9
Under 25...............
25 to 44..................
45 to 54..................
55 and over..........
592
1,579
681
627
57
159
102
169
229
683
243
164
117
332
178
252
442
1,123
460
440
109
314
135
112
41
142
86
75
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.6
10.1
15.0
27.0
38.7
43.3
35.7
26.2
19.8
21.0
26.1
40.2
74.7
71.1
67.5
70.2
18.4
19.9
19.8
17.9
6.9
9.0
12.6
12.0
Female, total..............
Married men: United States__
Depressed areas.........
Other areas.................
1,912
373
638
583
1,239
381
292
100.0
19.5
33.4
30.5
64.8
19.9
15.3
3,105
440
1,209
790
2,185
605
315
100.0
14.2
38.9
25.4
70.4
19.5
10.1
491
2,614
78
362
190
1,018
136
654
348
1,837
101
504
46
269
100.0
100.0
15.9
13.8
38.7
39.0
27.7
25.0
70.9
70.3
20.6
19.3
9.4
10.3
TJN PLO EN I A E S O SU
EM TM T N R A F
BSTAN
TIAL L B R SURPLUS
AO
Thousands of persons
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
29
The fact that insured unemployment of more than 15 weeks was
only slightly more prevalent in depressed areas suggests that the figures
compiled in this study do not reflect the full measure of chronic unem
ployment. There are a number of factors that may influence these
data 1 and it must be recognized that the data shown here relate
0
only to persons who terminated an active spell of insured unemploy
ment sometime during the period under observation. What we still
do not know is the number of persons in each type of area who were
chronically unemployed; who, for example, exhausted their benefits
long before the second half of 1956 but who never became reemployed
long enough to earn new benefit rights. This group of inactive unem
ployed would presumably be much more prevalent in chronically
depressed areas than in other areas.
Even if the industrial distribution of the insured unemployed in
chronically depressed areas shown in these data had been the same
as in other areas, the proportion drawing benefits for 15 weeks or
more would not have been any higher. Within certain industries,
however, such as mining, construction, and automobile production,
the proportions with spells of insured unemployment lasting over 3
months was a good deal higher in chronically depressed than in other
areas.
1 By and large most of the major depressed areas are in large industrial States where the benefits are
0
among the more liberal in terms of duration. This would tend to narrow the differences in exhaustion
rates to the extent that the insured unemployed in nondepressed areas might run out of benefits sooner
because of legal provisions alone. On the other hand, the concentration of depressed areas in large States
with longer duration of benefits should have accentuated the differences in the proportion exceeding 15
weeks. It is not possible for this study, however, to quantify the effect of variations in State law and oper
ating procedures on exhaustions or on duration, but it seems likely that it had little overall effect and cannot
explain the very small differences between depressed and other areas.
of insured unemployment by type of areat by industry, July 1956-June 1957
3
0
T a b l e 1 5 . —Duration and spells
[See headnote on table 11]
Percent distribution
Duration
Spells
Duration
Spells
Industry
Total
Exhaus
tions
Total
Less
than 5
weeks
15 weeks
or
longer
lonly
2 only
3 or
more
Exhaus
tions
Less
than 5
weeks
15 weeks
or
longer
1 only
2 only
3 or
more
United States, total.....................
6,300
1,019
2,274
1,726
4,307
1,240
752
100.0
16.2
36.1
27.4
68.4
19.7
11.9
Mining:........ ..........................
Construction........................
Manufacturing......................
Durable goods................
T ra n sp o rta tio n
equipment............
All other...................
Nondurable goods.........
All other industries..............
154
857
3,523
1,812
20
122
521
264
71
244
1,402
749
37
236
906
464
117
551
2,300
1,298
24
192
724
362
14
114
500
152
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.6
14.2
14.8
14.6
46.0
28.5
39.8
41.3
23.9
27.6
25.7
25.6
75.7
64.3
65.3
71.7
15.2
22.3
20.5
19.9
9.1
13.4
14.2
8.4
428
1,384
1,711
1,765
56
208
257
357
188
561
653
556
108
356
441
547
323
975
1,002
1,339
81
281
362
301
24
128
348
125
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
13.2
15.0
15.0
20.2
44.0
40.5
38.2
31.5
25.2
25.7
25.8
31.0
75.5
70.4
58.5
75.9
18.9
30.2
21.2
17.1
5.6
9.2
20.4
7.1
Depressed areas, total.................
908
158
316
265
599
192
117
100.0
17.4
34.7
29.2
66.0
21.2
12.8
Mining....................................
Construction. .......................
Manufacturing....................
Durable goods. .............
T ra n sp o rta tio n
equipment...........
All other...................
Nondurable goods.........
All other industries..............
67
100
570
343
10
17
92
62
28
22
218
126
20
34
152
101
48
60
367
248
11
26
124
72
8
13
78
23
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
14.9
17.1
16.1
17.9
41.0
22.6
38.3
36.6
29.1
34.7
26.7
29.4
70.9
60.3
64.4
72.3
16.4
26.6
21.8
21.0
12.7
13.0
13.9
6.7
182
161
227
172
29
33
30
38
65
61
93
46
56
45
51
58
138
110
119
124
36
36
52
30
7
16
56
17
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
16.0
20.5
13.4
22.1
35.8
37.9
41.0
26.7
30.6
28.0
22.5
33.7
76.0
68.3
52.4
72.1
19.8
22.4
22.9
17.4
4.2
9.9
24.7
9.9
Other areas, total.........................
5,392
861~
1,958
1,461
3,708
1,048
635
100.0
16.0
36.3
27.1
68.8
19.4
11.8
Mining..................... .............
Construction........................
Manufacturing......................
Durable goods................
T ra n sp o rta tio n
equipment...........
All other.................
Nondurable goods.........
All other industries..............
87
757
2,953
1,469
10
105
429
202
43
222
1,184
623
17
202
754
363
69
491
1,933
1,050
13
166
600
290
6
101
422
129
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11.5
13.9
14.5
13.8
49.4
29.3
40.1
42.4
19.5
26.7
25.5
24.7
79.3
64.9
65.5
71.5
14.9
21.9
20.3
19.7
6.9
13.3
14.3
8.8
246
1,223
1,484
1,593
27
175
227
319
123
500
560
510
52
311
390
489
185
865
883
1,215
45
245
310
271
17
112
292
108
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11.0
14.3
15.3
20.0
50.0
40.9
37.7
32.0
21.1
25.4
26.3
30.7
75.2
70.7
59.5
76.3
18.3
20.0
20.9
17.0
6.9
9.2
19.7
6.8
TJNEMPLOTMENT I AREAS O SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
N
P
Thousands of persons
T a b l e 1 6 .—Duration
and spells of insured unemployment by type of area, by occupation, July 1956-June 1957
[See headnote on table 11]
Percent distribution
Duration
Spells
Occupation
Total
Exhaus
tions
Duration
Total
Less
than 5
weeks
15 weeks
or
longer
1only
3 or
more
2 only
19.7
46
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.7
28.0
11.3
12.9
19.2
17.0
33.1
27.7
37.6
40.0
33.6
37.9
30.5
39.8
23.5
24.9
28.6
28.6
81.1
79.4
65.5
62.3
68.5
79.1
13.5
15.4
21.5
21.2
20.7
14.8
10.8
17.4
34.7
29.2
66.0
21.2
12.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
28.0
20.7
36.0
27.6
24.7
26.3
35.2
35.0
77.3
82.8
66.5
60.6
68.3
80.0
16.0
13.8
20.0
23.5
21.6
10.0
6.7
3.4
13.5
16.0
20.0
28.0
27.6
37.6
37.1
31.7
30.0
16.0
36.3
27.1
68.8
19.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.6
28.7
33.7
27.8
37.6
40.6
33.9
38.9
29.9
40.9
23.3
24.5
27.7
27.8
81.5
79.1
65.3
62.7
68.5
79.0
21.8
20.7
20.6
141
250
119
270
356
31
395
834
625
69
230
145
247
519
532
52
1,300
1,273
144
56
226
443
385
27
908~
158~
316~
265
599
192
Professional and manage
rial; clerical and sales____
Service.....................................
Skilled.....................................
Semiskilled.............................
Unskilled................................
Entry and other...................
75
29
170
388
227
2
1
6
2
0
2
1
8
27
20
52
58
4
4
34
91
49
23
62
23
Other areas, total.........................
5,392
635
Professional and manage
rial; clerical and sales____
Service.....................................
Skilled.....................................
Semiskilled....................... —
Unskilled................................
Entry and other....................
680
335
881
1,699
1,632
162
Depressed areas, total.................
1
2
6
80
7
58
24
113
235
155
16
861
1,958
1,461
3,708
1,048
10
2
229
93
331
690
553
63
203
137
205
417
452
45
554
265
575
1,065
1,118
128
90
52
192
352
336
25
96
99
218
298
27
64
144
72
8
12
0
42
2
2
1
134
340
21
0
1
0
117
5
1
2
41
2
0
11
1
278
178
8
11.8
13.4
25.6
11.2
12.8
18.3
16.7
13.2
15.5
15.4
6.1
5.8
12.7
16.3
5.5
10.1
10.0
11.8
6.0
6.0
12.6
16.4
10.9
4.9
31
12
0
11.9
I AREAS O SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
N
P
68.4
755
364
1,051
2,087
1,859
182
612
289
3 or
more
27.4
1,726
68
8
2only
36.1
2,274
11
0
1only
16.2
1,019
12
0
15 weeks
or
longer
100.0
6,300
Professional and manage
rial; clerical and sales____
Service....................................
Skilled.....................................
Semiskilled.............................
Unskilled................................
Entry and other...................
1,240
Less
than 5
weeks
Spells
752
United States, total.....................
4,307
Exhaus
tions
UNEMPLOYMENT
Thousands of persons
32
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
Statistics on the number of spells of insured unemployment also
showed little overall difference between chronically depressed and
other areas. Altogether, 34 percent of the insured unemployed in
depressed areas had more than one spell including 13 percent who had
three or more spells. The comparable figures for other areas were 31
percent and 12 percent. Both in construction and in the auto industry,
longer cumulative duration in chronically depressed areas did not
result from a greater number of separate spells but rather from the
longer duration of each individual spell.
P t of
ercen
In re Ue p y d
su d n mlo e
10
0
Distressed Areas
90
Other Areas
70
60
60
30
30
20
20
1
0
SK
ILLED B E
LU
COLLAR OCCUPATIONS
SEM
I-SKILLED
B E COLLAR
LU
OCCUPATIONS
33
W
HITE COLLAR
OCCUPATIONS
U IT OT T S TESR E T F A O
N U AE T I S
BRAOFLBRSAPTCMN O L B R
UEE S AO D IA T
UNEMPLOYM
ENT I A E S O SU
N RA F
BSTAN
TIAL L B R SU P U
AO
RL S
P t of
ercen
Inue Ue p y d
s r d nmlo e
1 0 --------0
Chart 5. Occupational Distribution of the Insured Unemployed
in Distressed and Other Areas: July 1956 to June 1957
34
UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL LABOR SURPLUS
A p p e n d i x t o P a r t II
L ist o f
M a j o r A r e a s Id e n t i f i e d a s C h r o n i c a l l y D e p r e s s e d
Indiana:
Evansville
Terre Haute
Massachusetts:
Fall River
Lawrence
Lowell
Michigan:
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights
New Jersey: Atlantic City
North Carolina:
Asheville
Durham
Pennsylvania:
Altoona
Johnstown
Scranton
Wilkes-Barre-Hazelton
Rhode Island: Providence
Tennessee: Knoxville
West Virginia: Charleston
Wisconsin: Kenosha
SAMPLING ERRORS FOR ESTIMATES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
INSURED UNEMPLOYED FROM THE 0.2 PERCENT SAMPLE
Below are given the approximate sampling errors for various esti
mates obtained from the 0.2 percent sample of all persons terminating
a spell of insured unemployment in the United States during the
July 1956-June 1957 report periods. These sampling errors also
apply to the estimates obtained for the depressed areas.
The sampling errors shown are for the 68 percent level of confi
dence. Doubling these percents gives the sampling variability for a
95 percent confidence level. Where estimates are for subtotals, the
sampling errors will tend to be overstated.
The approximate sampling error in percentage terms
For an estimate of—
1,000_________
5.00 0
10.00 0
50.00 0
100.00 0
—
Sampling error
(percent) For an estimate of— Con.
_____
_____
____
____
_____
70
31
22
10
7
Sampling error
(percent)
250.00 0
500.00 0
4. 4
3. 4
1,000,000.____ _________
2.0
2.500.00 0
5,000,000___________________
.5
.5
@FedFRASER